Skip to main content

Full text of "The Oxyrhynchus papyri"

See other formats













(A -' rnotrs 















The Offices of the EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND, 13 Tavistock Square, W.C. i 

AND 503 Tkemont Temple, Boston, Mass., U.S.A. 

BERNARD QUARITCH, 11 Grafton Street, New Bond Street, W. i 
HUMPHREY MILFORD, Amen Corner. E.C. 4, and 29 West 32ND Street, New York, U.S.A. 

C. F. CL.AY, Fetter Lane, E.C. 4 
KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRUBNER & CO., 68-74 Carter Lane, K.C. 4 

GEORGE SALBY, 6^ Great Russeli Street, W.C. i , ^ 

1 9 1 9 — ~ - 

I a I '^ I iQ 

Alt ris;lils reserved ' / / ' 





The present volume consists of literary texts, like Parts V and XI. 
The papyri of Lysias (l60e), lljperidcs (1607), Aeschines Socraticus 
(1608), and an oration on the cult of a Roman Emperor (I612) belong 
to the first of the three large literary finds of the 1905-6 season, 
which produced 841-4, &c., and has now been completely published ; 
those of Ephorus (I6I0), a work on literary criticism (l6ll), and 
Herodotus (16I9) belong to the second, which is not yet exhausted. 
Most of the other texts were found in the early part of the same 

Prof Hunt's continued absence from Oxford on military duties 
has prevented him from taking an active part in the decipherment and 
editing of this volume, but he has revised some of the papyri and the 
proofs. We are much indebted to Mr. E. Lobel, who has made 
numerous suggestions in the reconstruction and interpretation of the 
new classical texts, and to Dr. J. V. Bartlet for similar help in regard to 
the new theological texts. The assistance on various points afforded 
by Mr. T. W. Allen, Profs. J. Burnet, J. B. Bury, and A. E. Housman, 
Dr. C. Hude, Mr. H. Stuart Jones, Sir William M. Ramsay, Prof M. 
Rostowzew, and Sir John E. Sandys is acknowledged in connexion 
with the individual papyri. 

The two sections consisting of Contracts and Private Accounts, 
which were omitted from Part XII owing to want of space, are held 
over for Part XIV, which will contain non-literary documents and is in 
active preparation. We hope to issue it in the course of 1919, and that 
Mr. J. de M. Johnson's edition of the valuable Theocritus papyrus 
discovered bv him at Antinoc will be issued simultaneously. 


Queen's Collkge, O.xford. 
September, igi8. 



Preface ........••■••• ^ 

List of Plates ........•■■•• ^'' 

Table of Papyri ........•••• ^" 

Note on the Method of Publication and List of Abbreviations . . . viii 


L Theological (1594-1603) • • • ' 

n. New Classical Fragments (1604-1613). ..... 27 

in. Fkagmrnts of Extant Classical Authors (1614-1625), . . . 155 


1. New Theological Fragments . . . . •  .217 

n. Nfav Classical Fragments ......... 219 

IIL Subjects Discussed in the Introductions and Notes .... 230 

IV. Passages Discussed .......... 233 


I. 1594 recto, 1597 verso, 1604 Fi. 1 

II. 1606 Fr. 6, Cols, i-ii 

III. 1607 Frs. 5 + 4, 1608 Fr. 4, 1610 Fis. i, 4-6, 15 

IV. 1615 recto, 1618 Col. .\, 1622 Cols, ii-iii 

V. 1619 Fr. 10, 1621 verso .... 

VI. 1620, 1624 Cols. Ixiii-iv, l.wi 

k (i/ the end. 


1594. New Recension of Tobit xii (vellum ; Plate i) 

1595. Ecclesiasticus i . 

1596. St. John vi . . . . 

1597. Acts xxvi (Plate i) . . . 

1598. I Thessalonians iv — 2 Thess. i 

1599. Hernias, Shepherd, Sim. viii 

1600. Treatise on the Passion 

1601. Homily on Spiritual Warfare 

1602. Homily to Monks (vellum) 

1603. Homily concerning Women 

1604. Pindar, Dithyrambs (Plate i) 

1605. iNlenanHer, lAiaovfum'i 

1606. Lysias, vrpot 'l:nrudifi<rrii>. Agaiilsl TlicomihStus, &c 

(Plate ii) . . . . 

1607. Hyperides (.?),/'(?/- Zyco/'/i/w/ (Plate lii) 

1608. Aeschines Socraticus, Alcibiades (Plate iii) 

1609. Philosophical Work : Meirological Fragmen 

1610. Ephorus xii or xi (Plate iii) 

1611. Work on Literary Criticism 

1612. Oration on the Cult of Caesar 

1613. List of Early Athenian Archons . 

1614. Pmdar, 01. i, ii, vi, vii 

1615. Sophocles, Ajax (Plate iv) . 

1616. Euripides, Orestes (vellum) . 

1617. Aristophanes, Plutus . 

1618. Theocritus, Id. v, vii, xv (Plate iv) 

1619. Herodotus iii (Plate v) 

1620. Thucydides i (Plate vi) 

1621. Thucydides ii (vellum; Plate v) . 

1622. Thucydides ii (Plate iv) 

1623. Thucydides iii (vellum) 

1624. Plato, Protagoras (Plate vi) 

1625. Aeschines, In Ctcsiphontein 








3rd or 



3rd or 







4 th or 



4th or 


5th or 6th 







2nd or 



2nd or 







2nd 01 


Early 3rd 





r 6th  








I St or 



2nd or 





5 th 






I 2 






The general method followed in this volume is the same as that in 
Parts I-XII. 1604 (Pindar) is printed in dual form, a literal transcript being 
accompanied by a reconstruction in modern style. In the other texts the 
originals are reproduced except for separation of words, capital initials in proper 
names, expansion of abbreviations, and supplements of lacunae. A reconstruction 
in modern form of the more complete portions of 1606-7 and 1610-12 is also 
given. Additions or corrections by the same hand as the body of the text are in 
small thin type, those by a different hand in thick type. Square brackets [ ] indi- 
cate a lacuna, round brackets ( ) the resolution of a symbol or abbreviation, 
angular brackets { ) a mistaken omission in the original, braces { } a superfluous 
letter or letters, double square brackets [[ ]] a deletion in the original. Dots 
placed within brackets represent the approximate number of letters lost or 
deleted ; dots outside brackets indicate mutilated or otherwise illegible letters. 
Letters with dots underneath them are to be considered doubtful. Heavy Arabic 
numerals refer to the texts of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri in this volume and 
Parts I-XII, ordinary numerals to lines, small Roman numerals to columns. In 
the case of vellum fragments the terms recto and verso are used with reference to 
the upper and under sides of a leaf, not to the hair-side and flesh-side. 

The abbreviations used in referring to papyrological publications are 
practically those adopted in the Arc/nv fiir PapyntsforscJuing. viz. : — 

Arcldv = Archiv fiir Papyritsforscfmng, 

P. Amh. = The Amherst Papyri, Vols. I-II, by B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt. 

P. Brit. Mus. = Greek Papyri in the British Museum, Vols, I-V, by Sir F. G. 

Kenyon and H. I. Bell. 
P. Fay. — Fayiim Towns and their Papyri, by B. P. Grenfell, A. S. Hunt, and 

D. G. Hogarth. 
P. Grenf = Greek Papyri, Series I-II, by B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt. 
P. Hibeh = The Hibeh Papvri, Part I, by B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt. 
P. Oxy. = The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Parts I-XII. by B. P. Grenfell and 

A. S. Hunt. 
P. Kyi. — Catalogue of the Greek Papyri in the Rylands Library, Vol. I, by 

A. S. Hunt. 
P. S. I. = Papiri della Societa Italiana, Vols. I V, by G. Vitelli and others. 

1594. New Recension of Tobit xii. 

6-2 X7-5 cm. Late third century. I'late I (recto). 

A nearly complete leaf of a diminutive vellum codex, containing Tobit xii. 
14-19 in a recension which is not extant. Another fragment of a novel version 
of this popular apocryphon (ii. 2-4, S) was published in 1076, but is later 
in date (sixth century) than 1594, which is written in a small neat uncial hand of 
an unusually early type, resembling the hands of 656 and 1007 (both Genesis : 
Part iv, Plate ii and Part vii, Plate i). 656 is probably earlier than A. D. 350 and 
likely to be somewhat older than 1007 and 1594, being written on papyrus and 
having no contractions, whereas in the other two fragments deo^ is contracted ; 
but, like 1007, 1594 was probably written in the second half of the third century. 
The leaf when complete was nearly square, and of approximately tlie same size 
as P. Ryl. 28 (Part i, Plate v), a fourth-century treatise on \xavTiKi'i : for other 
miniature codices of biblical texts cf. 842 and 1010. No punctuation is dis- 
cernible, but a diaeresis over an initial v apparently occurs on the verso, which 
is much damaged and difficult to decipher. There are traces of what may be lines 
of ruling in the margin of the recto, which is probably the hair-side. 

There are two main Greek recensions of Tobit, one represented by the 
Codex Sinaiticus (N), the other by the Cod. Vaticanus (B) and Cod. Alexan- 
drinus (A). The recension of N, which is fuller and more picturesque than that 
of BA, is tending to be regarded as the earlier. Besides these two there is for 
chs. vi. 9-xiii. 8 a third Greek redaction represented by three cursive MSS., and 
from vii. 1 1 supported by the Syriac version, which before that point agrees with 
BA. This third recension occupies an intermediate position, being allied to N 
but less verbose, and is sometimes supported by the Old Latin version, which, 
like the Aramaic and earlier Hebrew versions, generally supports N. The view 
put forward in 1076 int., that 1076 belongs to the third Greek recension partially 
preserved by the cursives, was adopted in the latest and only fully equipped 
edition of Tobit, that of Mr. D. C. Simpson in Charles's Apocrypha and Pseitd- 
cpigyapha of thc^O. T. i. 174 sqq. ; cf. Journ. of Thcol. Shtd. xiv. 516 sqq. 



Leaving undecided the question whether the original language of Tobit was 
Greek or Semitic, he thinks that the book was composed in Egypt not long before 
170 E.G., and that the recension of N is the nearest approach to the original, 
while that of BA did not reach its present form until about A. D. 180, and the third 
recension was later still. 

The conditions of the problem are somewhat altered by the discovery 
of 1594, which is on the whole much nearer to BA than to N or the third recen- 
sion, here fortunately extant. In vv. 14-17, where the two main recensions 
do not greatly differ, 1594 agrees with BA against N in the insertion of f/c (1. 3), 
ayicov (1. 3 ; ayioiv ayyekwv BA ; ayyikmv N), -npoffavatpipovaiv (1. 3 ; add. Tas 
•npocrtv^ai tS)v aylcov BA ; ■nap(crTi]Kaaiv S^), the omission of avT&v (1. 8), and 
the insertion of eorai (1. 12) ; against these can be set only the agreements with 
t^ in the form iTKaw (1. 8), the insertion of ai;ai{Ta in 1. 13 (Travra i^; om. BA), 
and KOI for BA's on in 1. 9. In vv. 18-19, where the text of 5^ is longer than that 
of BA and differently arranged, the new fragment agrees with BA in having 
fIxavTov, not ffjif], in 1. 15 and in constructing iraa-as tch rjixipas with tL-nravonrjv vfuv 
(11. 18-19), whereas t^ connects the first phrase with the preceding evKoydre 
or with an added repetition of it, avrii vp.vflT€. Against this must be set the par- 
tial agreements between 1594 and N as to the verb in 1. 16 (t'iij.iji' p-ed' vp.&v : 
om. B ; ri\6ov A), and the occurrence in 1594. 20 of eOetopeire pi (cf. Old Latin 
vidcbatis me) corresponding to t^'s Qtiapilri pe. With the peculiar readings of the 
third Greek recension 1594 agrees against the other two in respect of the omission 
o( 'S.appav in 1. 2, and of ayyiXo^r in 1. 3, the insertion of (irl ryjv yjji' in 1. 9, and the 
reading diov in 1. 6 (Oeov without rod peydKov the cursives ; cf. Dei Old Lat.). But 
elsewhere the third Greek recension follows N rather than 1594, and is shorter even 
than BA in v. 19. 

The new recension has also a number of peculiar readings, such as the 
constant use of /cai as a connecting particle, where BA vary the monotony by 
be (1. 12 ; om. ^5) or odev (1. 17 ; om. N) or the absence of connexion (1. 19), and 
especially the new arrangement of vv. 18-19, which avoids both the obvious 
omission in B and the redundancy of N at this point. On the whole 1594, while 
belonging to the BA type of text, is distinctly better. Is this superiority to be 
explained as resulting from a revision of the BA text in the light of N, or from the 
priority and greater purity of the text illustrated by 1594, of which BA is a later 
form ? The second hypothesis seems to us much the more probable for several 
reasons. In the first place 1594 is an older MS. than B or A. Secondly, the 
constant use of koI in 1594 points to a more archaic text than that of BA. 
Thirdly, the text of BA, where in comparison with that of 1594 it is markedly 
inferior, as in vv. 15 and 18, seems to have arisen out of the text of 1594, 


not vice versa. In v. 15 the employment of ayio'i by BA three times within 
the same sentence, referring to different persons in each case, is intolerable, 
and the addition of ras 7rpo(reD)(aj tSiv ayimv looks like a Christian gloss on 
■npo(Tava(pipov<Tiv, which is intelligible by itself, while BA's ayiuiv ayyiKuiv {ayyiXaiv 
ii ; ayCwv 1594 and the third recension) may be the result of a conflation of 
readings or of a confusion between ayiwv and ayKcov, a contraction of ayyeKoov 
found e.g. in 1603. 12. In v. 18 1594 has eya> iJ-eO' vp-iii' oux ort tij (fxavTov 
XapiTL y'lfji-qv dA.Au rfi ^eAjJiret tov 9eov corresponding to B's ort ov rjj inavrov x.apirt 
aAAa tij deKijrreL tov Oiov v)xS>v without a verb, which is supplied by A (add. r\\dov). 
The phrase " your God ' is very inappropriate in the mouth of an angel , and 
it is noticeable that the third recension, which at this point follows BA rather 
than t^, ignores v\xm'. The explanation is probably that vp.Siv had really 
nothing to do with Otov, but is the survival of i)jxi]v ixeff vjxG>v found in both 
1594 and N, and that A's i)\dov is merely a correction inserted to restore 
the defective grammar. 1594's phrase oi^x on.. . in place of BA's (ort) ovxt . . . 
gives a more literary touch to the passage, and might easily cause difficulty 
to some one who did not understand that fi)xr\v was to be supplied with iyta 
fjieO' v)xG>v, with the result that a simpler construction was substituted. Fourthly, 
the result of an attempt to combine the merits of BA and t^ is partly ex- 
tant in the third recension, and though that edition now appears to have 
taken into consideration the text represented by 1594 as well as those of N and 
BA (cf. p. 2), it does not coincide with 1594, and is in fact nearer to ^5 than to 
1594 or BA, just like 1076. That fragment on account of its affinity to b? is still 
to be considered as probably a specimen of the missing portion of the third 
recension, not as part of the recension illustrated by 1594. We are therefore dis- 
posed to regard 1594 as an earlier form of the BA text, which developed out of 
1594 partly owing to certain editorial changes, partly owing to corruptions 
introduced in the normal course of transmission. 

There remains the question whether 1594 or t^ more closely represents the 
original text of Tobit. Owing to the small size of the fragment it is difficult to 
speak with certainty ; but with regard to the characteristics of the BA text which 
Simpson {JoJirn. ofTlicol. Stud. xiv. 527-8) selects as evidence for the later date 
of BA it is noticeable that (i) 1594 does not tend, like BA, to avoid koi 
as a connecting particle, (2) if 1594 is less redundant than in 11. 14-18, 
in 11. 19-20 it has a repetition which is absent from S, and (3) the two 
uncommon words in 1594, T;pocrai'a<f>ipovm and a)7r^a^'o/xI;^^ and the unusual 
construction in 11. 14-16 are absent from N, though as a rule the BA text is more 
commonplace than that of ^<. The 5^ text is certainly not conspicuously better 
than that of 1594 in these six verses. The addition in N of ^dppav before 

B 2 


rr\v vvix(\>r]v in 1. I and the omission of ex in 1. 3 and i-nl ti]v yyv in 1. 9 are 
no improvements ; ayCwv without BA's ayyiXmv in 1. 3 and ■npoaai'a(f>ipovai without 
BA's Ttts TTpocrevxas Toiv ayCwv are hardly open to the inferences which Simpson 
(op. cit. 521) draws from a comparison of the ' angelology ' of BA and N concern- 
ing the later character of BA. The use of Qiov toC jueydAon in 1. 6 in place of N's 
Kvplov perhaps illustrates the ' tendency to emphasize the transcendental character 
of the Godhead ' which according to Simpson [loc. cit.) serves to distinguish BA 
from {^, and oTrrcireo-flat (1. 19), as he pointed out, came to have a definite 
Christian connotation, being found in Acts i. 3 with reference to the appearances 
of Christ after the Resurrection. But the word occurs in the LXX and Ptolemaic 
papyri, and curious linguistic affinities between Tobit xii. 16-22 and the Gospels 
(cf. Simpson's n. ad loc.)2Lve traceable in the text of t^ as well as BA, so that the 
mere occurrence of o-nTavta-dai does not prove much. The reading of 1594 in 
V. iS eyo) fxe^' v}xS)v ov\ on rfi eixavrov xapiri iJMf is defensible against t<'s eyo) ore 
■ilix'li' piiO' vp.Giv oiixi r?j (p.?] xapiTi 'jfirjv peO' vpS)v : but the arrangement of vv. 18-19 
as a whole is more satisfactory in N ; for iidcrai rai i)pipai is more appropriate in 
conjunction with evAoyeire than with diTrravupiiv, and the repetition {iXoyeire . . . 
vpve'i.Tf in N is probably better than the repetition (h-nTaropijv . . .iBeiopdrf in 1594, 
which here combines the two verbs found singly in N and BA, though whether 
S's Oiwpdn is superior to edewpdre in 1594, here supported by the Old 
Latin, is very doubtful. In 1. 3 ayyiXwv (s) is perhaps preferable to uyCoov 
(1594), the two words being liable to confusion as soon as contractions came 
into use (cf. p. 3). 

Our conclusion therefore is that, while the recension of t^ is probably older 
than that of BA, f< had before the age of the Antonines, perhaps even from the 
earliest times when Tobit was read in Greek, a rival in the shape of the text 
to which 1594 belongs. This was largely superseded after A. D. 200 by the 
BA recension, which was based on it ; but traces of the influence of the 1594 
text are discernible in the Old Latin version, which was made probably 
before 300, and the 1594 text remained sufficiently important by the side of the 
BA text for it to be used in the compilation of the intermediate text found in the 
cursives and 1076, which was designed (in the fourth or fifth century ?) as a com- 
promise between the various conflicting versions of the story. The result of the 
discovery of 1594 is, we think, to diminish somewhat the superiority in point 
of age which can be claimed for the recension of N over others, and to increase 
the respect due to both BA and the third recension, as being either based upon 
or, in the case of the third recension, influenced by an older recension which 
is independent of S and may well contain some original elements. 


[craV^at ere Kai Tr]v vv/x xii. i < 
(prjv crov eyo) eim PacparjX i -; 

ety €< TCrii' ^ ayia)'\i'] ot npocr 
ava^ipovaiv Kai eianoptv 

5 ovTai ivmniov -rji So 
^rjS 70V 6v rov fnyaXov 
Kai iTapa-)(6rj(Tav oi /3 KaL i6 

iTTiaav itn irpotramov 
[eJTTt TT)i> yrp' Kat e<f)0^ri 

10 \6rj(Tav Kai iLTTiv avhoi'S 17 

[fiT] (po^eidBi ftpi]i'T]] 

vfiiy (o-rai Kai rov Ov [iv 
XoyiLTi €(9 Tov aTrav\Ta 
aicava eyco p^O vpaif 

15 Oll>( OT! TTj fpaVTOV X"/" 

Ti 'qprjv aWa tt] 6e\r] 
a€i TOV 6v Kat avrov iv\o 
yeiT€ Kai Traa-ai ray rifj-ie 
pa's miTTavoprjv y^i[v 
20 Kai eOecopeiTe pe ot[i 
oy[K {(payov ovSe eiriov 
1 line lost 



In place of a collation, we give the new text side by side with the three 
extant Greek versions and the Old Latin in full. 


^* ldaa'a6at ae Kai rfju 
vvptprjv aov. ^■' tyu) elpi 
'PacparjX, eiy e/c tcov fiTTa 
ayi(ov oi npocrava(p(povaiv 
Kai ilcrnopivovTai kviiriov 
rfji So^rji TOV 6fOv tov 
peydXov. ^'' kui irapd- 
y(6riaav 01 Svo Kai iTTfcrau 

fTTl npOaCOTTOl' CTT/ T7)l' yfji' 

Kai i(poPri[driaay. '" Kai 
iinev aiArois [M;; 0o- 
^iicrOi, iipijvy]] vp'iv iCTTai- 
Kai Toi> Oiov evXoy^lTi eiy 
TOV aTTavra aim'a. ^^ eyoj 
p(d' vpZv oy^ 0'"' ''V ipciv- 
Tov ■^dpiTi rjprjv, dWa rfj 
diXi^aei TOV 6eov- Kai 
avTov ivXoyUTi. ' ' Kai 


^* idaa(r6ai (re Kai ttjv 
vvpcprji/ aov Sdppai'. ' '' eyco 
dpi 'PacpaTJX, e/y iK Toiv 
tTTTO. dyimi' dyyiXcav 
01 Trpoaavaipepovcni' ray 
7rpoa(V)(^di t5>v dyioov Kai 
ei(nropivoi>Tai kvcamov ri^y 
So^rjSTOvdyiov. ^'^Kaitra- 
pd^6rjcrav 01 Svo Kai 'iwiaov 
(-aav A) eTTi Tvpoacanov, on 
i(f)oPri6r]aav. '" Kai eimv 
avTo'is Mi] <po^fiaOf (add 
on A) ilpTjvri iiplv iCTai- 
Toy Sf 6iov evXoyiiTi et'y 
Toy aiiava, ^^ on ov Trj 
epavTov ^dpiTi, dXXa Tfj 
OeXrjaei tov Oeov vpcoy 
(add ^X6oy A)- odev (ii. 

1^ idcraaOai Kai Xdppav 
Ti]y yvp<pT]y aov. ^^ eyco 
(ipi 'PacparjX, eiy rcou 
iTTTa dyyiXcoy ot TrapeaTrj- 
Kaaw Kai eiaTropevofTai 
iydiTTioy TJjy So^rji Kvpiov. 
^'' Kai €Tapd)(^6r]aay 01 Svo 
Kai (Treaay iirt TTpoaanrov 
avTwy Kai i<po^r)6r]aay. 
^~ Kai flney avroh Mfj 
cpo^ilaOe, eiprivYj vpiv 
Tw 6(by evXoyeiTe e/y 
TTayra Toy ataiya, '■° iyco 
0T( rjpriy peff vpcoy ov)(l 
Trj ipfj ^dpiTl rjprjy ped' 
vpcoy, dXXd Trj OeXrjaei 
rov 6iov- avTov ivXoyun, 
Kara. Tratray ray fjpepai 


ira.cra'i ray fjfxtpai wuTa- Xoyehe avTou ety rof avTco vfivuTi. '' Koi 6f- 

vojirjv vfiiv Kal kQempd- alSiva. ^'^ Trdcrai rai rj/jii- copeiTe /le on ouk ecfia- 

re fxe ot[i] ov[k tc^ayov . . . pa? <hmav6pr]v vpii> Kal yov . . . 

ovK i^ayov . . . 

Cursives 44, 106, 107. 

^* ida-aadai ce Kal Tr]v vv/Kprji/ aov. 

^^ iyd) ilp-L 'Pa(pariX, tii ray dytwv tS>u 

napearcoTCOf kvwniov tov Oeov. ^^ Kal 

eTapd)(^6ricray d/j.<p6T€poi Kal ineaav tirl 

Old Latin. 
^^ tcntare te et Sarram iiuniin tiiani. 
^° Ego cnivi siun Raphahcl, iinus dc 
septan angclis Sanctis qui adsistinms et 
convcrsamur ante claritatem Dei. '^^ Et 
conturbati sunt utriquc et cecidernnt tn 
npSac^nov airihu km ri^v ynv on lJ>o- ^^^^-^.^^^ ^,^ tiwnernnt. ^^ Et dixit illis 
^7]d7](Tav {oTL ecp. om. 44). " Kal dnef Raphahcl : Nolite tiniere,pax vobisciim, 
avTois, Mrj <f)o^(ia6(, dpTjvri vfih' fo-rar De2tvi bencdicitc in onini aevo. '^^Etcnim 
evXoyuTf tov Oiov, ^^ on ov rfi ffifj ctnn essein vobiscuvi non viea gratia 
XdpLn dX\d T^ BtXridii TOV Oeov eyw "-am sed voluntatc Dei: ipsi ergo 
r]X6ov. '■' Kal OVK 'i<payov . . . 

benedicite, et omnibjis diehts decantate 
ei. Et vidcbatis ine quia viandu- 
cabam . . . 

3. npocravacfxpnvcrii' : this word occurs twice elsewhere in the LXX, Judith xi. 18 f'\6ov<Ta 

Tipoaavoluu) aoL and 2 iMacc. xi. 36 a Sf €Kpti'€ 7Tpoaav€vf\6^vai Tm i^aaiXfl. 

1 1- 1 2. That oTi should be read in 1. 1 1 before tiprjvri with A is improbable, the line being 
long enough without it, and similar words of connexion being avoided elsewhere in the frag- 
ment; of. p. 3. It is just possible that v]\fifiii should be read instead of vptv in 1. 12. 

13. (is: etn might be read, but eh is regularly used in this phrase in the LXX 
and N.T. 

15. ovx oTi : K is the only alternative to x and the vestige of the next letter suits o, but 
not e, so that ovk^ti is an unsatisfactory reading, even if it suited the context. The traces of 
Tt are slight, but suggest no other appropriate reading, so that ov^ on is practically certain ; 
of. int. 

20-1. oT[t I ov[k (so (^) is very uncertain, but suits the slight traces somewhat better 

than (ta[i I ov[k (BA) or ov[k (\cj>n[yov. 


18 X 1 1-2 cm. 

Sixth century. 

A leaf from a papyrus codex, containing the first nine verses of Ecclesiasticus 
in the LXX, written with brown ink in large heavy round uncials of the 
type represented by e.g. Schubart, P;?/. Grace. Bcrol. 44^ (Iliad xxii), probably 
in the sixth century, to which documents found with or near 1595 belong. The 
numbering of the pages, if it existed in the position occupied by the numberings 


in e. g. 1598, is not preserved, so that it is uncertain whether this is the first leaf 
of the codex or only of a section. The beginnings of verses are marked by fresh 
lines which project slightly, and the ends by high stops apparently throughout, 
though owing to injuries to the surface these are not always discernible. The 
usual contractions for 6eoy, Kvpw; (but not in 1. i), and ovparos occur. 

Verse 7 eTTLaTt'iix-i^ ao<f>!.as Twi (i^avtpmOi) koI ti^i' TTo\vTr(ip[av avrrjs Ti'y avvrjuev ; 
which is generally regarded as a doublet of v. 6, is omitted, as in the chief 
uncial MSS. ; but v. 5 ('''■')>'') o-o(/)iay Ao'yoj dfov h' v^idToii, koX al Tropdai. avrf/j 
fjiToAai alwrioi) is retained, as in some cursives and versions (cf. 11. 16-19, n.), 
though this too has generally been rejected as a doublet of the preceding 
verse ; cf. Box-Oesterley in Charles's Apocr. and Pseudcpigr. i. 318. The resem- 
blance, however, between vv. 4-5 is much less marked than that between vv. 
6-7, and since v. 4 ends with alUvo's, v. 5 with altLvioi, the hypothesis that 
the disappearance of v. 5 is an error due to homoioteleuton has, we think, 
more to justify it than the view that it is a Pharisaic addition. In other 
respects the text of 1595 is not remarkable, the spelling and arrangement 
agreeing with t<AC rather than with B. A note at the bottom of the recto 
perhaps refers to an omission. This is the first papyrus of Ecclesiasticus. 


\na\ua aotpta irapa Kvpiov /c[a( i 

[/i]€T avTov fariu 

[etjy TOP aicofa- 
[afj.]fj.ot/ daXaa-acof Kat 2 

[(7\Tayovai verov Kat 

[Tj]fiepav atcofo? ti? 

[ii\^]oy ovfou Kai nXaro? 3 

[y]r]s Kai a^vaaov Kat 

crotptav T<[y] f|<X''' 

[nplorfpa TravTcav (KTt 4 

[<7]rat ao(f)ia- 
\_Kat\ (Tvvicri^ (ppofrjae 

coy €^ atcoi'os' 
[7rr]]yr] crotptas Aoyoy 6v 5 


Kat ai TTopiai avT[ri9 ev 
ToXai atcofttjtl' 
20 pt^a (TOfpta^ Ttv^i am 
Kai ra TTavovpyr\fj\a.Ta 

aVTTj^ Tt9 eyj'[a)- 
€iy ((TTty crocpoi [0o/3e 
25 po? acpoSpa- 

Kadrj^fijffoi em t[ov 
Opovov avTovy- 

KS aVTOi eKTlCTiV \aVTr]V ? 

Kat etSii' Kat (^rf[pi6pr] 
50 (Tip avTrjv 

Kat ei^X^^^ avTri[y (ni 
itavTa TO. epya [avTov 

[[tTravw . o-VTHy]] 


9—10. rai troffiiav: om. Syriac and Latin versions. 

16-19. This verse (5), omitted by the uncial MSS., is found in cursive 248 and others 
and in the Syro-Hexaplar, Latin, and Sahidic versions ; cf. int. 

2 2. Travovpyr]ij.\aTa \ SO t^AC ; JTavoiipyevfiaTa B. 

23-4. Between these hues several cursives (not 248), the Syro-Hexaplar, Latin, and 
Sahidic versions insert verse 7 eVurr^/ij) oorpias ktX. ; cf. int. 

24. (Totfios : this word, though found in the Greek MSS., is omitted by Box-Oesterley, 
/.c, following the versions. In place of 11. 24-5 the Syriac and Arabic versions have ' One 
(there is) who hath dominion over all her treasures '. 

28. 1^ : B alone of the Greek MSS. assigns this word to the previous verse. That 
avTrjf, the reading of the MSS., was added at the end of the line is not quite certain, though 
without it the line would be rather short ; cf. 1. 33, n. 

29. fiSfv: so t^C: i6ff BA. 

33. Whether this line, which was written in uncials by a different hand in darker ink 
but intentionally obliterated, has any connexion with the main text is uncertain. The 
readings of all the letters except the first four are very doubtful, and there are several 
ink smudges on both sides of the papyrus which seem to be accidental. If enava is right, 
the reference is perhaps to an omission by the first hand, i.e. of hiitiji' in 1. 28 rather than 
avTOV in 1. 32. 

1596. St. John's Gospel vi. 

10-7 X 5-2 cm. Fourth century. 

A fragment from the lower part of a leaf of a papyrus codex of St. 
John's Gospel, containing vi. 8-12 and 17-32, but with the loss of slightly 
more than half the lines. It was found together with third-fourth century 
documents, and probably belongs to the early or middle part of the fourth 
century, the script being a medium-sized semiuncial. 'l{r](Tov}s is the only 
contraction, and one high stop occurs (1. 41) ; pauses are indicated by a slight 
space in 1. 46, and probably by a larger space in the lacuna in 1. 49. The 
papyrus, though hardly so old as 208 (parts of i and xx) and 1228 (xv. 25- 
xvi. 31) and not very correctly spelled, is interesting on account of its early 
date, being probably older than 847 (ii. 11-23 on vellum). The text is eclectic 
in places (e. g. 1. 33), as often happens in early Biblical MSS., but tends, 
like 847, to support B rather than t<, to which 208 and to a less degree 1228 
incline, or A. There are 8 agreements with B in the 10 places where B and 
N* differ, and in only i out of 5 places, where A differs from both S and B, does 
1596 apparently support A (1. 31, n.). A new order of words seems to 
occur in a passage where all three of the chief MSS. differ (11. 40-1, n.). 

14 lines lost 
15 [avTov AfSpeai aSeXcpos Si/J-folfOi IIe.Tpo[v vi. 8 

[eoTtr TTaiSapiou (oSe os c]x^' Trefxe aprovs K[pi 9 


Oivov^ Kai Svo oy^apia a\\\a ravra rt fa-rw eii 

ToaovTovi fiTTfu o li 7roirio-]aTe rov? avdpconov^^ 

ai/aTTeaeif -qv Si \opT\os noXvi ef tco tott^co 

avimcrav ovv ol\ avSpi's tov apL6yp.ov 

a><T(i nii'TaKi<T\\i\noi eXe/Sej/ ov[v 

Tovs apTovi o li K]ai ev)(^api(TTT]cras eSo3[ 

Key Tois avaKiifi]evoi^ o/xokos km i[K 

TCDV O'^apioiv oao\v rjBiXov cuy ^6 

iveiT\rja'6rj<Tav\ Aeyet roiy fiaOr^Tai^ a.\y 



13 lines lost 
[yovTO TTfi]paY T[ri^ BaXacrarjs eiy Ka^apvaovp. 17 

40 \K]ai OTKOTia rjSr] fy^f]y[oyei Kai ov Trpo? avrovi 

[e]\Tj\vOiL o ly Tj re 6[aXa(T(ra avepov piya- 18 

[Ko\v TTViovTo^ Sieyei[peTo (XrjXaKOTf? ovv 19 

CBS araSiovs eiKoai ■n\evT€ rj TptaKoura Oecopov 
[cn]i' Iv TrfpLiraTovivra eiri TJ/y OaXacraiji 

4.-, Kat evyvi tov ■rTXot[ov yivopevov Kai 

e(f)ofir]6T]aav o Sf [Xeyet avTois eyco apt 20 

pr] (po^eicrdai r]6e[Xov ovf Xa^nv avTOV 21 

eiy TO ttXoiov Kai i\y6eai^ tyeyeTo to ttXoiov 
em Tijs yrjs fis riijr vm^yoi' tt] enav 22 

50 piov o 0)(Xos o fcrT[T]Kcoi Tttpav Trp; OaXaaarj^ 
I'Seu oTi nXoiaptof ^aXXo ovk rjv (Kei ei prj ef 

16-18. The restorations of these lines, based on K and B, are quite long enough, even 
allowing for the slope of the column towards the left, which is noticeable on the verso. 
Hence it is very improbable that 1596 agreed with A and many later MSS. in adding 
fv after li-aiSaptov in 1. 16 and 8c after fin-fv in 1. 18. 

19. x"P'']''f TToXvs : so nearly all MSS. ; ttoKus ;(opT09 A. 

20. ovv 01] avSpts : this, the reading of t<B &c., suits the space better than ow 
01 ai'{6paTT)oi avSpet (A &c.). Some MSS. omit ow or 01, and 1596 may have had 

01 av(^6po)-!T)oi avhpes, omitting ovv. 

2 1. [oxrfi (A and most MSS.) suits the length of the lacuna better than as (NB). 

eX(/3ei/ : 1. eXajief. 

ov['' : so NcABD and some others ; Se N* &c. 

22, fvxaptcrrqaas : SO AB and moSt MSS. ; evxapi<TTrj(T(v Kai iVD &C. 


f8w[icfr: SO J<5D and some others; Sie&wKev AB and most MSS. 
23. Koi-. so KAB and most MSS. ; 6f rai D &c. 

40. [xjai CTKOTia r]Sr] (y[(]y[oi'ft : SO AB and most MSS. ; KarcXafiiv 6f avTovs r] (tkotio {^D. 
40—1. ov npos avTovs \f]Kt)\v6fi o \{T]a-ov)s : ovn<a fXr^X. l(n(T.\ irpos avT. ^ ; odtto) tt/joj avT, 

(\rj\. o l(ria.) B ; oi'ic eXi/X. wpos avT, o l(jjcr.) A. There is not room for oun-o) here. 

41. Tc so most MSS. ; 8c D &c. 

42. Sleyfi[p€To : so B &C. ; diriyftpero i^AD &C. 

43. as : so NB and most MSS. ; mo-ti AD &c. ; om. a few MSS. 

arahovs : SO {<» ^el bAB and most MSS. ; (TToSm N*D. 

43-4. dfu>pov\cri]v : the supplement in 1. 43 is rather long; and possibly opa\iji]i> 
occurred, though no such variant is known here. Before i{t](tuv)v the MSS. insert tov, but 
there is certainly not room for [t(>]i> here. 

46. o Se : so all Greek MSS. except {^, which has Km. 

47. <j)ol3fiiT6ai : 1. (^u^€i<j6(. 

49. fTTi Tijs yr]s : so J^<=ABD and most MSS. ; enc r-qv yrjv J^* &c. 

[vn-jjyo^ : so all MSS. except t^*, which has vnrivT-qatv. That reading is possible here, 
for the supplement (13 letters) is 3 or 4 letters shorter than would be expected, but there 
may well have been a considerable space before rrj cnavpinv, which begins a new section. 

51. (Sff : so ^^D &c. (fi«f.') ; ««<..' AB &c. ; iSoiv some MSS. 

1597. Acts of the Apostles xxvi. 

5-7 X 2-8 cm. Late third or fourth century. 

Plate I (verso). 

This scrap from the bottom of a leaf of a papyrus codex is tantalizing, 
for it belongs to an abnormal recension of Acts. The script is a good-sized, 
somewhat irregular uncial, which is certainly not later than the fourth century 
and may belong to the latter part of the third. M has the middle brought 
down below the side strokes ; the top stroke of Z is curved and the middle 
of CO is slurred, deos is contracted, as usual. Whether stops were employed 
is uncertain. All that survives is 7-10 letters from the beginnings or ends of 
10 fairly long lines which covered xxvi. 7-8 and 20, and the reconstructions 
of the lacunae are in several places doubtful ; but enough remains to show 
that the text presented many novelties. In ch. x.xvi D (Codex Bezac), the 
principal rival of the current text, is defective ; but in 11. 3 and <S there are strong 
indications of agreements between 1597 and some of the variants preserved in 
Old Latin MSS., so that the fragment seems to represent a vcrj' ancient Greek 
text akin to the ' Western ', apparently avoiding some of the difficulties of 
construction and sense presented by the current text in this chapter. That 
a piece of the ' Western ' text of Acts should make its appearance in Egypt 
is an interesting circumstance, but perhaps not very surprising. The reading 
of D in Matt. iii. 16-17 occurred in the Oxyrhynchus Irenaeus fragment (405; 


Part iv, pp. 264-5), and in other papyrus or vellum fragments of Acts from 
Egypt occasional agreements with D are found (in P. Amh. 8 at ii. 13, and in 
von Soden's a ' at iv. 33). 

Verso. Plate i. 
TO SccSeK[a(pv\oi' r}^a>v ev (KTf 7 

yta i^vKT[a Kat tj/jtepav XarpiVd ip ? 
(XiTtSi KyaTavT-qcraL nepi Tjy I'Vf ? 

eyKa\ov[/iai vno lovSaicof a ? 8 

5 69 viKplovs iyeipei 

[aTriiOr]^ tt] ovpavico oTTTaaia a]\Xa TOis ([f 20 

[AapaaKCo npcoTot' re Kai Iepo]ao\ofioi<i Ka[i 
[ttj lovSaia Kai 70i<s €6viaLv\ iKrjpv^a [ 
[peravoeLv Kai eTTiaTpe<puv i\iTL tov Qv [ 
10 [a^ta TT]9 piTuvoiai ipyo. Trp]aaa-0PTas [ 

1—3. The ordinary Greek text is iv e'KTe^(e)ia vvkto Ka\ tjixi^yav Xdrpivun fXTTiffi KaTairrrjaai 

{-t)<T(iv B)' 7re()i ris eXwiSos eyKaXovfiai, but Cod. Gigas (13th Cent.) whlch lias instanter node ac 
die descruj'iint in spe periienire, de qua spe iittnc accuser in place of the usual node ac die 
deseruienies sperani deuenire, de qua spe accusor, seems to be based on a Greek text closely 
allied to 1597. cXttiSi in 1. 3 makes a verb, not a participle, necessary in 1. 2 ; but whether 
(1' should be inserted at the end of 1. 2 is doubtful, for it produces 20 letters in the lacuna, 
whereas in 1. i there are only 16 in the corresponding space. Line i is, however, very short 
compared with the lines on the recto, and possibly a dittography or unknown variant 
occurred in the lost part of it. If so, there was no appreciable difference in the length of 
the lines on the two sides of the leaf and not only is there plenty of room for Xarptufi tv in 
1. 2, but fXTTtSor, for the omission of which there is no parallel, can be restored instead of wv 
in 1. 3, and ffaaiXev inserted in 1. 4 (cf n.). But on the whole we prefer on account of 
1. I to suppose that the lines on the verso are somewhat shorter than those on the recto. 

4. After lovSaiuj', before which many cursives insert tmj', most Greek jMSS. except A 
insert /SaaiXfC ; but Cod. Gigas omits rex, and there may well have been a blank space before 
V. 8. There is no room for ffarriXfv here without creating a great difficulty in the restora- 
tion of 1. I ; cf the preceding n. How 1597's recension of v. 8 was arranged is not clear. 
The Greek MSS. all have tI i"ini.aruv Kpiverai nap' v/xiv, el 6 6f6s veKpovs f'yflpa, which is repro- 
duced in the Latin, and the omission of a line containing n . . . vptv is an easy hypothesis. But 
in view of the other new readings in 1597 the passage may represent a genuinely different 
recension of a verse which comes into the context somewhat abruptly, and which Nestle 
wished to place after v. 23. 

6. Verses 9-19, which are missing at the top of the recto, would occupy 33 or 
34 lines corresponding to 11. 6-10, if the text was approximately as long as the ordinary 
one ; but 1597 seems to be somewhat shorter than usual. 

7. The restorations of 11. 9-10, which are practically certain, favour the insertion here 


of either re before rat wiili NAB (but not traceable in the Old Latin) or tv before IfpojiroXo- 
/ioif with A, but not of both. 

Ko\i I TTj lovhma : this restoration, though implying a new variant, suits the presumable 
length of the lacuna in 1. 8 (if xai rou eOutcnv is retained) much better than Ka[i | Toir louSmois, 
which would have the support of ht omnem 7'egmiem ludeis, the reading of the Cod. 
Colbertinus (13th cent.) and a corrector of the Cod. Perpinianus (13th cent.). ^?BA have 
TTaaav re ttjv x'^pav Tijt lovSatas, which is retained by Tischendorf in spite of the difficulty 
caused by the unexplained accusative, in later MSS. governed by an inserted fit (so von 
Soden). That 1597, which was shorter here than the current text, had ra[i | as naaav rijf 
)(a>pav Trjs lovbaias] and omitted Km Toir eBveaiv is possible, but less likely. 

8. (Kijpv^a : anr]yyf\\of (SEA) is the best attested reading, and the numerous variants 
are all compounds of ayyeXXdv in some form. The Old Latin MSS. have admintiare 
in some form, except the Floriacensis (6th-7th cent.) which has praedicaiti, apparently 
representing (Krjpv^n. 

9. TOK 6{eo)v : Tw ^QinTa 6. some cursives, &c. (including von Soden's chief ' Pamphilus ' 
group); cf. xiv. 15. 


Fr. 4 8-8 x6-2 cm. Late third or fourth century. 

Parts of two consecutive leaves and an unidentified scrap of a papyrus 
codex, containing I Thess. iv. la-II Thess. i. 2 with considerable lacunae. The 
script is a large heavy round uncial of the early biblical type, not so formal and 
calligraphic as e.g. 1166 (Part ix, Plate i), but, like 406, probably of the late 
third rather than the fourth century. The usual contractions of dtoi, '\r]<Tovs, 
Kvpioi, iraTt]p, and Xpiaroi occur. No stops are actually found, but a >-shaped sign 
is used for filling up short lines. The numbers of the pages, which are twice 
preserved (pp. 207-8), suggest that the book was a collection of St. Paul's 
Epistles, and it is noteworthy that the usual order of these from Romans to 
I Thess. would exactly account for the preceding 206 pages. 

The text is interesting, being, as often, eclectic in character. It agrees with B 
four times against sA,once with BA against N, twice with nA against B, once with 
i^ against BA. In 11. 60, 77, and 109 the papyrus clearly presented a longer text 
than any of the MSS., but in no case is the addition preserved, though fairly 
probable conjectures can be made. In 1. 70 the papyrus is shorter than the MSS. 
The unidentified fragment does not agree with the ordinar}- text of any passage 
in either of these two Epistles. A seventh-century vellum fragment of I Thess. iii. 
6-9, iv. 2-5 has been published by VVcssely {Stud, zur Pnlaco'gr. xii. J 92). 

Frs. I + 2 recto. Frs. 1 + 2 verso. 

i>os [xpeiar exrjTe ou OeXo I. iv. ij [ovTcot (p^erai orav \€y]a)aii> v. 3 

Hev [Se I'/jay ayvoeiv aS(\ 35 [fiprjifT] Kai acr(paXiia to]t ai 



3 [^o]t [nepL TCtiV KOllKOfJitVOiV 

15 lines lost 

vov KaL o\i viKpoL (V Xo) a iv. 1 6 
20 vacTTTjaolfTai npcoTov e 17 

7r€;T[a r)p.u%- 01 ^oivTiS 

01 Trfp[i]\[enrofievot afia 

(TW avTOli a[pwayriaofj.€6a 

ev ve(pe\a[is eis aTravTi] 
25 (TLv Tov Kv eiy [aepa Kai ovtoo 

rravTOTe <jvv [/caj ecrop(6a uxj 18 
7 lines lost 

17 lines lost 
[Svaafiivoi 6a)paK\a TTicrr€[ v. 8 

[ojy 'cai ayawTji Kal^ ■7TtpLKi<pa[ 

55 [Kaiav eXntSa o-\coTr]piai on [ 9 
[ovK tOtTO 6y' rjfia'i «($■ op[ 
[yr}v aWa ejy ■n]ipnTOLri\cT\iv 
[<T(0Tr]piai Sia t]ov kv r)n<oi' 
[Ir]v TOV aTTodavov\TO^ vnep rj 10 

60 [fiwy TTavTWv ? iv\a €/[Te yp\]l 
6 lines lost 

Frs. 3+4 verso. 

[ae ] 

[v/zii/ >f at Trpoi(rT]ay[o]fii v. 1 2 
[royy v/xcov ef /caj /fa]( i-ou 
[deTOVfTa^ Vfias] Kai rjyei 13 

70 [crOaL avTovi e]/c Trfpiaaov 
[ey ayanrj Sia to] e[p]yoY av 

[T<tiv\ i\l.prjViViT]i €V aVTOti 

'\Trap]a.K[a\ov/x€i' Se v^/xas a 1 4 
[SeXtpoi fovOeTfiTi] tovs 

75 [a]fa[f]7[o]w ■jT[a]pa[iJiv6(ia-]6e 
TOi/s o[X]iyo'^v)([ovs avTi-)(^e 
aOe TQ)i' a[cr6]([i'cm/ ef v/jllv ? 
p.aKpo6vpiiT[( npos irai' 
Tas opaTf prj T[£y KaKOi' av 15 

80 rt KUKOv Tii'L aTT[o8<ti aWa 
TravTOTi TO a[ya6ov SicoKe 
re Kai us [aXXrjXous Kai €iy 
7rav[Tas navroTf yatpiTi 16 

a8ia\XiLTTToas rrpoaev^^^ia-Be 17 

85 (u 7r[acTt ev)(^api<7TeiTe tov 18 
18 lines lost 

Frs. 3+4 recto. 

[ <"] 

Kat nepi r][fia)i' a(nracraa6e v. 26 

105 Tovs a^eX^ouy navTas iv 

(f)iXr)naT\L ayico ei'opKi^o) v 27 

/zay Toy kv [avayvaxTQrjvai 
ry]v iiTKTTyoXrjv iracriv Tot? 
a8iX(p[0L? TOis ayLOis } r/ ya 28 

no pi$ TOV [kv -qpaiv It]v Xv fie 
6 vp\aif 

[npos @ia(TOL\Xovi\i.K]tis a 

[npOS @i(T(TaXo]yi\LKi\lS /3 

[TlavXos Kai 'Si.X]ovavo\f\ kul II. i. i 
115 [TLpoOios Tt] eKK'Xrjcna 
[Qea-a-aXoviiKicav ejf 6<o 
[irpi T]/j.Q)y Kat kw Ir]]u Xa> 
[Xapii Vjiiv Kai eiprjfr]] ana 2 

1 8 lines lost 


Fr. 5 (middle of a column). 

Verso. Recto. 

137 ]a4 ]to[ 144 . .] Iri[ 

]«[ ]'«?[ 

]ro[ ]<'"^^[ 

140 ](ca[ 

1-2. 6(koyfV. so t^AB and most I\ISS. ; 6(\a some cursives, versions, and citations. 
22. 01 nep[i]\[(i.TTonevoi : SO most MSS. ; om. FG &c. 

25. TOM /<(vpto)u : so ^?AB and most MSS. ; some others have toj X/jkttm. 

26. uvv: so NA &c. ; tv B. 

35. to]t : the f is not usually elided here. 

56. o ^(fo)s] rtfjLai: SO B with some cursives; rj^af ^(fo)? NA &c. 
59. [i^ : so B and the Aethiopic version ; for 1"^ \v, the ordinary reading, there 
is not room. 

vnffl : so N^AD and most others ; mpi H*B. 

59—60. ri\fi<DVT!avTwv^ iv\a: om. Tra/Twi' MSS. No variant except ypi/yopou/jfv for ypr/yopu- 

lj.iv is known at this point, but the traces of letters in 1. 60 are irreconcilable with the ordinary 
readings, ae being nearly certain, though the other vestiges are inconclusive. 

67. T!poi<n'\av[o\ij.f[vovi: SO NA, this being a common Egyptian form of the usual 
npoiaraiievovs. The reading is not quite certain, but suits the vestiges better than n-/)]oi[crTa]- 
^i€[i'ov$, which seems to be the only alternative. 

69. Km : so NAB and most MSS. ; ware FG. 

70. «]« nfpKTirov : vn(p(KTvepitr(Tov {^A and most MSS.; vn€pfKiTfpi(T(To>s BD*I'G. In iii. 
10 and Eph. iii. 20 there is no variant for vnepiKTrfpta-aov, but in Mark .xiv. 31 NBCD &c. 

read fKneptaaac in place of (k wtpio-o-ou. 

71. The supposed traces of ([p]yoi' are very doubtful, but no variant is known. 

72. avrms: SO NO* &C. ; fauToi? ABD" &c. 

77. ci[(T6]e[vwv (V vpiv?: SO Bartlet ; the MSS. have nothing between aaBevtuv and 


82. Km: so N^B &c. ; om. N*AD &c. 

104. KM : so BD* &c. ; om. NADc and most other MSS. 

106. empKi^a (ABD* &c.) suits the space better than opKi(oi (m)^' and most others). 

109. nSfX<^[oiE TOtt aytois: a8(\(pnis N*BD &C. ; aywis aSi\(j)nLS N''A &C. 

111. After vp[av the papyrus may have had apriv with NA &c. 

112. The title agrees witii NB* ; other IMSS. add fVXj;pa>5r; or eVfXfVSi) or eypaiprj diro 

113. The title agrees with NAB ; other MSS. prefix Spx^rm. 

114. 2iA]oDni'o[f] : so NAB &c. ; some IMSS. have StX/iavtir. 

117. lri(^(To)]v X{piar)a> : to NAB &c. ; \{pi(TT)oi l{r]<ru)v D and some others. 

144. This line corresponds in position to I. 143, the upper part of the recto being lost. 
The first contraction was presumably some case of xupios or Xpiorot, but 1. 144 cannot be 
combined with I. 117. 

1599. HERMAS, PASTOR, SIM. Vlll 15 

1599. Hermas, Pastor, Sim. viii. 

24-5 X 19-8 cm. Fourth century. 

A complete leaf of a papyrus codex containing Sim. viii. 6. 4-8. 3 of the 
Shepherd of Hermas, this being the eighth Greek fragment of that popular 
work which has been obtained from Egypt, besides a few Coptic fragments ; 
cf. 1172. int. and Berl. Klassikcrtcxte, vi, p. 16. The two pages are numbered 
73 and 73, the columns being slightly longer than those in 1172, where Sim. ii 
occupies pp. 70-1. The script of the major portion is a medium-sized upright 
semiuncial with a tendency to exaggerate the last stroke of a, /c, and A. Some- 
thing seems tcf have gone wrong with the verso, where the original writing has 
been obliterated in 11. ^-6 and from 7 onwards, and a larger and less practised 
hand, which imitates the style of the first, takes its place up to the end of the page. 
The leaf was found with dated third-century documents, but the writing hardly 
suggests so early a date, and it more probably belongs to the fourth century, like 
1172, than to the last quarter of the third. 0eoj and K^'pios are contracted, as 
usual. Pauses are indicated by high stops and blank spaces. An apostrophe is 
sometimes used to mark elision or divide double consonants. 

The text is not very good, being prone to omissions, especially owing to 
homoioteleuton, as in 11. 19-20, 35, 37, 40-1 ; cf. 11. 3, 9, iS, 33, 34, 33, '^'i,, 
41, 45, where 1599 is in nearly all cases clearly wrong. Other slips occur, 
e. g. in 1. 39. But naturally the difference of nine centuries between the dates 
of 1599 and the Codex Athous, which for this part of the Shepherd is the 
sole Greek authority, expresses itself by a number of improvements in the 
older text. In five places (11. 9 eAuAj;(ras, 30, 31, 37, 54) it supports one or 
both of the Latin versions against the Athous, which in 1. 54 had corrupted 
axiTov to Aot77oi', as discerned by Hilgenfeld. Of the other variants the most 
noteworthy occur in 11. 3-4, 5, 11, 35, 38, 43, 46, 48, 50, 56. Most of these 
are probably right; that in 11. 3-4 is apparently supported by the Aethiopic 
version. There are, as usual in Hermas papyri, several changes in the order 
of words (11. 6, 30, 44, 47, 49, 53), where the evidence of the older witness is 
generally the more credible ; cf. 1172. int. 

The collation with the text of the Codex Athous (ca) is based on Lake's 
transcript in Facsimile of the A thos fragments of the Shepherd of Hennas, which 
supersedes Simonides's transcript used by Gebhardt-Harnack and the imperfect 
collation of Georgandas. The information as to the Latin Vulgate and Palatine 
versions (L^ and L-) and Aethiopic version (A) is obtained from Gebhardt- 
Harnack's and Hilgcnfeld's editions. A new edition of the Shepherd is much to 
be desired. 




ano Tcoy toiovtwi' ^toiovtwi''^ t] (cor] a7r€[cr7J;] viii. 6. 4 

01 Se Tas ivpo-^ f«' aaijTTTOvs fTnSeScoKo[T€i] Kai 5 

ovTOf eyyfy avTwv rjcrav ijjTOKpiTai kui \£i8]a-)(a.i 
etcrcpepoi'TiS fTfpai' Kai «/c(jrp60oj'7e[s] Tovi 
5 SovXov9 Tov 6v (2nd hand) /za[[Xj|X(crTa S( iraXiv tovs rjnap 
ist hand Tr]K0T(9 (2nd h.) /ir] a<piVTis a(ist h.)vTov^ (2nd h.) jxfravoiiv 
aWa Tai? SiSa)(^ais rati penpal's weiOoyTev avToys 
ovToi ovv e^ovaiu iXwiSa tov fieravorjaai' jSXenn 6 

Se e^ avToov piTavfvorjKOTt^ a(p ore tXaX-qcra's 

10 avTois ray (.vToXa'S fiov Ka[i'\ en fieTaforjcrcocnv 
oaoi Se ov /leTevorjirau ancoXeaav rrjv ■<^v)(r]v 
dvTCOf 0(701 Se neTevorjaav e^ avrmr aya6[o]i 
ey[e^yovTO• Kai eytvero rj kut oiKia avrcof ei[i 
Ta Tt)(7] Ta irp(0Ta- rii'ey Se /cat eis tov nvpylo^ 

15 ave^jjaaf /SAeTTiy ow (f)rjan' oti i] jxeTavoia 
Tuiv afiapTQiXcof ((oi]v ei\ev to Se prj /xera 

V0T)<TaL SavaTOV oaoi Se r/pi^r^povs e7re[ 7. i 

ScoKUf Kai ei' av'ai? ay^^iapas eiy^ov aKove TTe[pi 
avTcov ocruiv r^aav ai pafiSa[i] r^pi^-qpovs [ 

20 Siijfvy^oi eiaiv Kai KaTaXaXoi prjSenore eipr)y[ev 2 

ovTes ei' iavToiS' aXXa Si-^ioaTaTovvTes 7r[ar 
TOT6 Kai TovTOii iprjaiv eiriKeiTai peTav\oia 
^Xeireis (prjaii' T/ray rjSrj e^ aVTWV peTav[eVo 
TjKOTa^' Kai eTL eXms eariv ev avToii peTal^oias 

25 oaoi ovv (priCTiv e^ avTwv peTavevoTjKa[ai 3 

^paSvTipov €iy Ta Tiyrj KaToiKr]cra)aiv 
01 Se ov p.eTai'or]aw(rtv Tai? 77'pa^€[o'jii' avTCov 
OavaTco ano6avovvTar 


1st hand ©[crot S]e )(Xcopas eniSeSwKOTei Tai pa^Sovs avTwv 4 

30 Kai [ff)(i\apa? e;(oi/cras ovTot wavTore niaToi Kai 

1599. HERMAS. PASTOR. SIM. I'lII 17 

ayal^oi] ^ytvovTO iyovjf.'i Se ^»;Aor -ira er 

a\\Xr]]\oi9 TTipi irpwTLCov Kat nepi Solas' aWa 

irai'Tes ovToi fzcopot eicni' tv aX'XrjXot^- aWa Kai ov 5 

Toi aKovcravm rcav iVToXwv pov ayaBoi 

35 ovTi'i iKadapiaav eavTovi Kai ptTwoi^aav 

ra^t; iy^viTO ovv >/ KCiTOiKrjcns avTOiv ets tov 

TTvpyov iav 8e riy avTcov naXti' eTriarrpafpT] 

6jy Trjr Si)(oa[Ta.]aiay eK KoWrjOrjaiTai tov wvpyou 

Kai awoXicri ttjv ^(oi]1' uvtov j; ^coj; iiavTcop 6 

40 eoTiJ' Tcov TrjpowTwr Ta^ ei'ToXai tov kv 

Kat Tas ivToXas Se wepi TTpcoTicov rj mpi So^rj^ 
ovK fCTTiy aXXa n(pi paKpoOvptas Kai ntpi Tawi 
i'o<pp[o]avi'r]i avSpos ev T019 Se toiovtois jj ^o)?/ rov kv 
fi' Sf roi? Siy(^ocrTaToti Kai irapavopois Oai'aroi- 

45 TO)i' Se eTTiSeScoKOTCOi' rai pa(3Sov? rjpio'v ^Xcopay rjpicrv 8. i 

ifjpai ovToi iiaiv 01 ran npaypaTiais avrur 
evTTicfivppivoi Kai Toii ayioii pi] KoX'Xcopefoi 
8ia rovTO TO rj\^pi]iTV ainoov (1] Kai to rjptav ainOaviV 
iroXXoi ovv aKovaavTis toji' ivToXwv pov peTe 2 

50 vorjaav oaoi ovv pfTevoijaar r; KaTOiKia avTCov 

[eij] -ov TTvpyov Tivts Se avTcov eiy reXoy aneaTTja-av 
[ovTo]i OVV piTavoiav ovk i)(^ov(nv Sia Ta<i npaypa 
[rias y\ap avTcov €^Xa<r(pr](^pri')(rav tov kv kui ain]pvi}<TavT0 
[aliToi' awcoXicrav ovv ttjv ^cotjv avrcov Sia ttjv wo 

55 [vrj^piav Tjv iirpa^av ttoXXoi S( e^ avTcov eSiyjfV)(^T]<Tav 3 

ovTOi ovv (Ti c)(^ov(Tiv piTavoiav eav Tayi> ptTavorjcroiaiv 

I. ToiovTwv: SO ca and L" ; L' adds ergo, A igi/nr. The lerminalion of Uie word 
following ToiovTuiv is very uncertain; bul. though the obliteration might be accidental 
instead of intentional, toivw does not seem long enougii. 

3. ouTot' ey}-!;? nvTtav j^trav '. tivToi ^yyi's avTwv' rjaav yap ca, supported by L^L" and A. 

3-4. [8iS](i;^(if fi(r(pfpoi'Tei (repas : 8i8. ^eras fcafj}. ca. pravas in L'L" perhaps implies 
a different adjective, but A's duplicem [docln'iiam) seems to support ercpas, for which 
cf. Gal. i 6 (Tfpov (inyyiXiov. The Gnostics are supposed to be meant. 

5. ^o|[X]]Ai<rr(i : or possibly paX'Kt.crTa. 

miKiv : om. ca, L'L% 

7]papTr)K(jT(s : r)iiapTT)K6rn<! ca ; cf. 1. f), where the accusative in -«$ recurs, and Januaris, 
Hisl. Gr. Grdni. p. 120. 



6. n^fVTfi : a(pi(tiT(i ca in accorJance with the otlier participles. 

(iiTOUi- liiTavofiv : fierauoeiv avT, ca. 

7. TreidovTfs : SO ca and I,' (cMt/iiii/cs) ; delinebani L° ; sediiciiiit A. 

9. (^ uvToiv : TioWoii f'l (WT. ca with L'L^. 

liiTfiVfVor}KOTfs '. Ka\ yifTavivorjKoTa^ ca ; cf, 1. 5, 11' 
a^ oTf : d<j() ?;? ca. 

eXaX))o-as : SO L'L' [perlulisti) ; eXaAij^a ca ; mintialian est A. Editors prefer f'XdXijo-us-. 
Cf. the passage immediately preceding 1. i, where ca has f'XdXr;o-a, but L' implies eXdX;;(ras. 

10. }ii-nivor]<ju)<jn': ^(Tavor]aovaia ca ; cf. II. 26-7 and Jannaris, op. cit. p. 555. 

11. fi€Tevoijcr<w: fifTavoijcrovcnv ca. ; igcn'iit (y.\. cgennit) UU^. ^trnKoiJirot'o-ii' is probably 
due to a reminiscence of 1. 10. 

^^Xi" '■ C'^1'' ca : I'/'Aim L'L". 

12—3. nya6[o]i ey[f]i'Oi'TO' Kai ; om. L'. 

16. etxc: e'xfi ca; nicssc {vi/ai/i) L^IJ'. 
18. 77f[pi : Kai TTcpi ca ; A' (/lis) I'cro L'L-. 

19—20. ai /)a/38o[il rjfii^rjpovs iii\jfV)(t)i (iirw Km KaraXaXoi : al pd/JSot Kada (1. Knrii) to aiiTii 
>llii^<]poi 8L\jfV)(oi eio-i!'" oi/Vc yap fwcrir oiVf Tf6p!]Ka(ri.v. ot 8f' rjpi^rjpovs exovrts xol fv 01^(1?? (Txta-fias, 

iivToi (tat Sn//-u;(oi (tal KaraXaXoi fiViv ca, the oinissions in 1599 being mostly due to homoiote- 
leuton; cf int. The archetype of 1599 may well have already lost Kara tu avro, which is 
omitted by L^ and A {/a?i/ii/iii/indi> U). 

20. fiT]S(TToTf : ('/ nu)ii]uam L'L'A ; rai pi;Se ca. ra! ^T^fieVoTf Gebh.-Harn. ; but xa'i 
is superfluous. 

22. KOI : d\Xd Km ca ; el {/us) '//ii'deni L' ; /law </ L". 

23. ijSi; : om. ca, L'L'. 

24. fTi f\nts eoTLV fv avrms pfTa^votas '. (n, (/>T;<r(V, etTTiM fV a^TOi? fXTTif pfTav. Ca. 

25. "(Toi onv : Kai oCToi ca : quiruiiqiic vero L' ; qiiiciinqtie enim L'. 

/i€Tai'fi'or^Ka[(riJ ^pahvnpov '. pfTau. Trjv KarotKiVii' 6t? TOf jrvpyov f^oviTiV. oo-oi Se e^ ainioi' 
lipaSvTfpov iKTavevoTjKaai ca. Cf. 11. 1 9— 20, n. 

26. KaTOiKi^rTwa-tv : -auvtnv ca. Cf. 1. TO, n. The supposed stop may be part of the k of 
Ku\ai in 1. 25. 

27. ni 8e fK /lifTiifor^uaxru' : SO L', qia Vt'l'O 110)1 egcillll ; oiJoi 8e ov ptTavoovaw dXX' 

f'liiieiiouai ca. Cf, 11. 10, 19-20, and 29, nn. 

29. o[a-oi : 01 ca. Cf. 1. 27 where the papyrus has 01 for ocrm, 

30. QVTOL naVTQTe : TTUtfTQTe ovToi ca. 

31. 8e: om. ca; but .«•</ L'L". 

32. 6o|(if : \. So^rji. K^rjs Tivus ca. w'ltXxU^ (tli'giii/a/e quadam) ; JJ omits qtiadafii. Cf. 
1. 41, n. 

33. (V aXXijXois : add ex"'"''* ^^i''- Trpondav ca, which edd. emend by inserting f^Xoy after 
c^oi-Tff from L' liabenl iiihr se aciiiulaliomin dcpn'iicipalu ar\d U dc principatu cerlanbir. 

35. ^Ka^apierav \ iKaOapTjaav ca.. 

37. avT(ov : SO L'L- (<•«?•«;«) ; om ca. 

fmaTpa(j)r] : entaTpiyj/r) ca ; redierit L'L". Li classical authors the passive was used in this 
sense; but cf Matt. .xii. 44 f7TicrTpe\j/u> ds t'uv oIkup pov. 

38. (KKoWrjfftjcreTai : fKJiXtjdijiTiTat ami ca ; fxpcllclur L'L". cKKoXXdi/ is not attested, but 
seems not unlikely here; cf 1. 47 mis aymn p\) KoWaipevoi. ji and k are often very similar 
in cursive hands from the second century onwards. 

40—1. Ta>v Tijpi)VpT<i}f Tas €mo\as Ttiv nivptnjv Knt ras ffroXas fie : twv Ttn €vr, tov k(i'p). 
((wXticrciivTaiv' in TaXs fvTuXaU 6< ca with L* ; {villi tiii'iii) eontm qui cuslodiunt ntaudata doiniiii 
in inandalis consislit L'. Km may be a mistake for Kara, but iv t-ois Sf roioDTotf occiu's 
111 1. 43. 


41. So^rjf : 5o|i;j TWOS ca with L'L^. 

42. T(iTr(i'o(/)(j[o]iTiJ>';;s' : TmTcivo(pi)ovrja((i>s ca ; hufiiilildkiii aniinii: L' ; aiiiini liumil. \J. 
TdTTd.vofjjiioa-inr] occurs several times in the X. T. and i Clem, aiul in the Shfpherd twice, 
Vis. iii. 10. 6,S/'/ii. V. 3. 7 ; but for Tana.vorjypui'qais Stephanus only quotes Tertiillian. 1589 
is iikel)' to be right. 

43. ev Tois 8f TomuToit ; eV Tois toldvtois ovv ca. I-.' has for 11. ^1—'^ per palwntiam . . . 
viiani homines consequentur. 

44. fvfif Totf 8i;^o(rTaTi)i$ : fV tois 8t;(oo'7aToi£ 8e ca. cw 8f has been Corrected. ^ixoaTojan tAA. 

45. Tmr 8e en'tSfSMKoTwi' : 01 Sf f'n-fSmSoKrires ca, rightly. 

y]\xiav )(\apas rjiiiav ^'jpas : rj/i. fxiv y^. ;;/j. 8£ ^ijp. ca ; L'L" invert Tiridf and anduni. 

46. Tnif n'/)ny^aTinis anTtDi' : Iv Tats TipnyfiiiTeUns ca ; ncgotldlioiiiblis (Jlivoluli) L'L'. 

47. TQis aylOLS pq KoWoifjL^i/ol : fzij KoW, to'ls ay. Ca. 

4S. Km TO rjpuTv a-!T(0(tiiev: to 5e rJiiKJv vfKpov iaTi ca ; dimidiuiH moiiuum < j/L' ; dimidiae 
mortuae suiil IJ'. 

49. Tu>v (VTo\u)v pov: pov Ttt>i^ eVr. ca, 

50, ovu : yiivv ca ; L'L" Oin, ocrot youi^ piTevurjtTtiu. 
32. Sia Tai TTpnypa^Tias y](if) : fiia yap t. TTpayp. ca. 

54. [aJuTOK  Hilgenfeld's conjecture for the meaningless XoiTrciw of ca is confirmed ; cf. 
e7 f«7« ahncgavenint L", euinquc ahncg. L'. 

56. oi/f : om. ca ; adhiic et his est regressus qui si cito . . . L' ; ijuibus adhiu per celcrcm 
poeuitentiavi regressin est \?. 

1600. Treatise on the P.vssion. 

2 2-,-, X 7-8 cm. Fifth century. 

This and the next three fragments (1601-3) all come from works which 
do not seem to be extant, though in the absence of an adequate patristic lexicon, 
except for the Apostolic Fathers and Apologists, this is not quite certain. 
None of them is likely to have been composed before the third or fourth 
century. 1600, which is most of a leaf from a papyrus codex, contains part 
of a treatise on the Passion as foreshadowed in the Old Testament by 
various types such as .Abel, Joseph, and Moses, and being therefore at once 
both old and new ; illustrations from Deuteronomy and the Psalms are 
quoted. The verso clearly follows the recto, with an interval of perhaps not 
more than a single line at the top. The script is a good-sized round uncial 
of a formal type. The mound in which 1600 was found produced mainly 
fifth-century documents, and that century rather than the sixth is likely to 
be the date of the papyrus. The customary contractions for (?eos, kv/ho?, and 
X/)ioTo'$ occur. Pauses are indicated sometimes by high stops or blank spaces, 
but the employment of them is irregular. There are a few marginal corrections 
in a similar but not identical hand. On both sides of the papyrus the surface is 
much damaged in places. The restorations are largely due to Dr. Bartlet, who 
suggests that 1600 may come from Hippolytus, Wpo^ 'loi'Sat'ovs. 

C 2 


Recto. Verso. 

[...... J . [.1 TTfcrrea)? 

[. . . . t\K jxaKpov npoa 

[ ] OVTiO Si] Kal TO 

5 [tov kv Tr]a6os €k fiUKpov 

[ ]co6ii' Sia Se TV 

[nov Si]X<o }]6fy arjfiepov 

liV TIP-IV ?] TVy-^aViL TiTe 

'\\(ta)fii]i'[oi' .]a 

lo i' ]ay Kaipoiy to] na 

[\aioi>] vofiL^o[iJ.evo\v 
leoTi y\o.p KaLvo[v koi 7r]a 
[Xaiof to] tov icv p.v(TTif\ 
[pLov Tr]a\awv jxiv Ka^ 

lo [Ta To]!^ I'Ofioy Kaii'ov \ 

[aTro^lAeilfjjy eiy tov tvtto~ 
[Kaiv\oi' o\lfr] Sta ttjs Qy 

[5oa6 ?](»? TOIVVV U I30V Ea[ 

20 [Aei to] tov icv pvcrrripio [ 
[yi/a)]i/or arro^'Kii^ov 5[t)H 

let? ro]i' A^eX- toi> Si o-SeX 
[(pov (p]ovtvopivoi' €iy 

[tov ..]... TOV 0/J,OlCOi 

25 [ ] • • O^OjiiVOV 

[eis To]v Idccrrjcf)- tov 
[lxoi]a)i TTtTrpacTKOfie 
 [vol'] fis tov Mcovaia 

[tov] OflOtOO^ fKTlOe\[p€VOV 


30 t[o]v OpOlyWS . ... pi 

vov eiy To[v^ aXXovi 

TOV? opotcos [KaKcos na 

o-^oi'Tes' arro^iXeyf/ov St 

Kai fis TOV (V [Haaia cuy 
35 npo^uTOv <T(p[a\6€VTa 

TOV TraTa^ai[Ta 

Kai (ToocravTa \TroXXovs ? 
■ntpi TOV aji/ilaToy [ 

Sia n[po](f)7]TiK7]s [ypacpT]? ? 

40 t[0 tov] KV pVCTTTJiplOV 

. . . . . pivov [pfv yap 
Mwvay]S TrpOi\(pr]T(va'€ 
Kai o-^fcrOe ttjv [(ccijv v 
p<ov Kp(papev[7]v eprrpo 

4.) (t6(v toov ocpdaX^^pcov v 
/xwv vvKTOi Kai [rjpipas 
Kai ov maTevarjT[€ eis ti]v 
^(orjv vpcov o [Se AavetS 
<[<]n-f r tva Tt f(ppya^( v tOvq Kai 

50 Xaoi ep€X(TT](ra[v Keva 
iTape(TTi]CTav 01 jSa aiXeis 
TTjs y';y Kai 01 alp^ovTes 
crvvq-^dijaav ([m to av 
TO KaTa tov kv Ka,t Kara tov 

55 Xv avTov ov . . i 

€ . y ojy apvioi' ^eiy aipayijv 

ayopivov tov \ 

iXoyiaavTo •  . 

2 recto. 




• ']"lius ihe Passion of ilie Lord which was (foreknown) for a long lime and revealed by 
a paitern, lo-da}- finds itself fulfilled in us . . . new which was thought old. For the mystery of 
the Lord is new and old, old in respect of the law, but new in respect of grace. But if thou 
wilt consider the pattern, thou wilt see that it is new by the giving (?) of God. If then thou 
wishest to know the mystery of the Lord, consider Abel who was killed through his brother; 
. . . who was likewise . . . : Joseph who was likewise sold ; INIoses who was likewise exposed ; 
. . . who was likewise . . . ; the others who likewise suffered evil things. And consider also 
him who in Isaiah was slain as a sheep, who (was ?) struck . . . and saved (many). Concern- 
ing the blood . . . the mystery of the Lord is (revealed) through prophetic writing. For Moses 
prophesied "And ye shall see your life hanging before your eyes night and day, and ye 
shall have no assurance of your life ". .\nd David said " Why did the nations rage and 
the'peoples imagine vain things ? The kings of the earth set themselves and the lulers 
took counsel together against the Lord and against his anointed ". Whom . . . they 
considered as a lamb led to the slaughter . . .' 

8-9. T(TfK(ia>n(vov or TiTiXeajximv would be expected, but hardl)' fills up 1. 9, which 
is shorter tlian the rest and perhaps ends a sentence. 

1 7. TDi' Tvnuv : the reading is very doubtful ; but neither iraKaiov nor ro ttuXmov is satis- 
factorv, and cf. 1. 6. It is not quite certain that a fragment containing the supposed 
5 of TUTTov, V in 1. 18. and the top of the v of /3ou and (a[ in 1. 19 is rightly placed here. 

19. The marginal note apparently corrects ei jinv'Kei. to eav liovXrj. Xi; ma}' have been 
written in the margin below eav or at the beginning of 1. 20, or possibly eav | [Pou]|\[ti 
should be restored at the ends of 11. 19-21. S[ is, however, preferable in 1. 21 ; cf. n. 

21. There is a space between anuli\f\j/i)v and S[, which perhaps belongs to a marginal 
addition beginning in 1. 19; cf. n. 8[« is not wanted, anoliXeyjfov being the apodosis of fi 
fiov[\(i (but cf. 1. 33, where there is room for 8f) ; and 8[ir) is more likely. 

22. The readings after .\/3eX are very uncertain, but tov u;7o tov | [Kaiz' (p'^ovtvonivon does 
not suit the vestiges. 

24-5. CIS [rov lo-]naK rm Ofiouos [vno npjs o-c^afo/iffoi' IS unsuitable, though u(iiji(fov docS 

not suggest an appropriate word. 

32-3. ■rrtt](r)(oi'Tes : cf. 1590. 5, n. 

34~5' Cf. Isa. liii. 7 "if npofitiToii inX a(\iayt)v ii\6i) and 11. o*)— 7- 

36. irara^aVTa : 7raTaj^6evTa would be expected. 

43-8. A loose quotation of Deut. xxviii. 66 kh) (arm t) fcoi; aov Kiie^auivt] I'lTTevai'Tt 

TOiV <l(ji$ilAfliDV fTOV, Ka\ <pOjSlj6i](T>l 'l^ijWg Kai VUKTOi, Ka't nv 7Tl(TTeV(TilS T1} ^iOlj (TOV, 

49-55 = Psalm ii. i. 

56-8. Cf. Psalm xliii. 22 e'Xoyiij^VMf «? Tr/w/Sara (TCJiayris and II. 34-5, n. 

59-60. This unplaced fragment, being blank on the verso, presumably came near the 
ends of lines : but at the ends of II. 13-15 there is apparently nothing lost. It is not clear 
which way up ii is to be read. 

1601. HO.MII.V ox Sl'IKITU.-\L WARFARE. 

12-7 X IO-2 cm. Late fourth or fifth leniury. 

The lower part of a leaf of a papyrus codex containing a homily of some 
kind on the warfare of the soul, largely concerned with Joel i. 6 (IL 2 sqq.) and <S 
(11. 23-S), but also referring to Hosea iii. 3 (II. 29-30) and perhaps the Pentateuch 


(1. 33). For much of the reconstruction we are indebted to Dr. Bartlet. The 
script is a medium-sized semiuncial of the late fourth or fifth century, with 
occasional higli stops and the usual contractions of fleo's and probably Kvpios, but 
not of vlos. Abbreviations are found on the recto, which probably followed 
the verso, and these perhaps occurred at the ends of lines of the verso also. 
Brown ink was employed. 


[ ]^Ffj' 

[.]ft)/^ei' Tov I'ov lOTi eOi'OS ave^rj 
iTTL rrjy yr)i> tov :Kv La-)(ypoi' yrj 
yap cprjdLv at ■^v)^^ai rcof ayicov 
5 Kat 1] '^I'X'i TOV vio^^v T7)i awcoXet^as) ? 
e^j/oy f^ovaicoi' t[ov Koa/iov tov 
TOV KaL Tn'evfj.aTiK[ri (.cttiv rjftii' 
T] iraXr] Kat ayal3aiv([t avjo ? 'cr^^i' 
pov Tvy^^avof Ka[i avtv apt 

ic 6/iaiv COP T] T€Tap[Tr] 

KaTU TOVTO yap XfX[eKTat ava 
ptdftrjTOP TOVTov Se tov e0i'ov9 
[01] oSovTes Xeo/'TJ^oy 07/ avrt 
[5i](co? vfiaiv Sta^oXo^ neptnaTet 

I J [^]_r;T(Bi' KaTanteii' ^ 


]eTat . [ 

]Trvpof at .... [. 
] Kfpawr]a-T] pmrt 
]r avTcov awoWvcTt 
]poi' rrepiTtOrjcrii' Se 
] onep SrjXovrat ev 
]tt]S /i€rrt[[i']] TavTa 
6pri]i'i]crof npoi fxe 


a-aK]Koi' em tov avSpa av{-7]s) 
25 X]eyii rji' 6pr]Vii em 

T0]US SlKUlOV? TOVS ei' TTj 

] T(o 000 Op-qi'eiv Se 
o]ti eyriaTevcriav) kul e6pr}veva^a. 

]j' eAey(€r) fla-yje yvvaiK{i) iTop[vevovari) 
30 OTL KaOrjar]] en efioi koli ov prj iTOpv{ev(Tr]s) 

] . lo\. . .] . pOLK[ I OTl TTpa>T[OV) fiev 

] . eypa-^ev Mcovaris OTt ear 

e]TrtOvn( ) TTjv e^ e6v{ovs) eKKXijatd 
t]ovt{ ) avTl TOV prj wy e6viK[ ) 

2-15. ' . . . because " a nation is come up on the land of the Lord in strength ". By 
" land " he means the souls of the holy, and the soul of the son of destruction by the "nation " 
of the powers of this world ; and our wrestling is spiritual. And it " is come up being strong 
and without numbers ", of which the fourth . '. . ; for on this account it has been called 
numberless. Of this nation " the teeth are those of a lion " because your adversary 
the Devil walketh about seeking to devour . . .' 

I. ]m/if[i/: the first and third letters might be o, and the same applies to jw^fi' in I. 2. 

2-3. Cf. Joel i. 6 on i6vos dftiSi] fn't ti)v yr)v fiov laxvpuii Ka'i linapldfj.tjToi', at oSdi/rff 
avTOv 6d6vT€s Xinvrns^ Kat at pvXal avrov (TKVfii'ftv. 

6. s of e8vos has been corrected. 

7—8. Cf. Eph. vi. 12 OTl ovK (o-Tiv !)n'iv 7) fffiAi; Trpui ru'/jri Km crapKa, ciWu . . . trpos Ta nvev- 
puTiKa rtjs irovTjplas. 

13—15. Cf. I Peter v. 8 o aiiTiSiKos ipav SulfioXos, (Of \€<i>v wpvupfi'os, Tre/uTrnTfi fiyrii* riva 

18. K(pavi>7jtTi] : Kfpavvoiv is known, but apparently not Kipuweiv. 

23-4. Cf. Joel i. 8 dpijvrja-ov TTpos pf VTTfp iwp(f>}]v TifpK^uxTpfvrjv auKKov in'iTuvavhpa avTrjs Toy 

mipfifviKoii. There is not room here for irfpu^oia-peviji; unless it was contracted, and certainlv 
not for iTTf/j mp<}>i]v as well, so that the quotation was probably not verbal; cf. 11. 2-3 and 
29-30, nn. 

29-30. Cf. Hos. iii. 3 Kai (ma npus avripi^ 'Hpepas ttoWch Ka6ij(T^ eV (poi, Koi oi pij 
nnpi'evatjs . . . 


12-5 X 10-8 cm. Lale fourth or fifth ccntur)-. 

A leaf of a vellum code.x containing apparently the beginning of a sec- 
tion of a homily to ascetics on the spiritual warfare as illustrated by the 
history of Israel. The vellum is stained and shrivelled in places, rendering 
the decipherment sometimes difficult, especially on the verso (the flesh-side?), 
where the ink is fainter ; and we are indebted to suggestions of Dr. Bartlet 



for several readings. The script is a good-sized uncial of the early biblical type, 
not quite as old as 406 (Part iii, Plate i) or 849 (Part vi, Plate i), but pro- 
bably of the late fourth century rather than the fifth. O is written small and 
the middle of CO is slurred, as in 1597 (Plate i). Stops are freely employed, 
these being generally in the middle position, but double dots and a mark like an 
apostrophe are also used. A breathing is inserted in 1. 4. 0eds, 'b/iro??, 'In-^xuiA, 
Kvpio'i, -nvtZjia, and X/nirro's arc contracted. Some remarkable expressions occur 
in 11. 33-7. 


arpaTioiTai Xv- aKOvaan no 
aaKii e/c ^fipos avoficov 
6s eppvaaro top Ij/X- Kai fi( 
vpi ov ra npos tov kv iTrj 
.T povaav ovK anea-TT] an avTw : 
(K \€Lpos yap ^apau) fffco 
aef avTov oiroy avofiov- 
Kai fly fia(Ti\ia>[i a\vo(noTt 
pov- Kai ASap. fifT[a t]coi' aWo 
10 (pvXwv- KttL enei ra npo? 6v 
iTTipovaav- en eSatKef 
avToi? €K Kapnov ri-jS icx^ 
oy en-ayyetXa/i€co? yr]i> 
Xavavaiwi'- Kai vrma^i 
I,-, avTois rovs aWocpvXovs- 
Kai (liT avTo. oaa tv tj/ « 
pjy/io) Kai Ti] avvSpeo ]^Katj^ 
napecr\iv : evrt tovtois 
npo(j)r]Tas e^€nep.-^iv- 

20 KripVaCTilV TOV KV 1^fi<0 

Xv Ii' oiTives KaTa Ta^iv 
Kai K\r}pov (Kai) fjupidiiov \a 


^ovTd TTva Xpv KaXonaQov 
Tes VTTO TOV Xaov am^peOi] 
2.-) aav- avrjpeBqcrav anocTo, 

769 TTl/Oy ^(HVTOS KaTa 

Tas [av\onLas avTcof to- 
(paXyflaaf] ttjs KXrjpovopn 
ay. TJjy aimpiov- Kai t'yi> a 
.50 SeX(f)[oi] iieivaTi viKrjTai- 
//6ii'[alre eajy av vnofieiva. 
Tfy Klv^pcofjief Tr)v npocnXev 
aiv TTjv npoi kv- Kai av/i 
(bvTOt' Kai onXov evSo 
55 Ktas Xa^QifJ.d' Xi> It'- avTo 
iJnep rjiiaiy cpvvTa tavTO 
yrji ^Kaijl ovTcoi ws icrTif- 
Kai napaXa^iTe tov Xoyov 
OTi nva Svvafiiws in e 
40 (T'^^aTCO TCOV KaipoDv .... 

' Soldiers of Christ hear how often God delivered Israel from the hand of the lawless, 
and while they kept the thin-s pertaining to the Lord He did not withdraw from them— for 
He saved Israel from the hand of Pharaoh the lawless, and from Og, a more unholy kmo;, 
and from Arad with the men of other nations, and when they kept the thmgs pertamitig 
to God He still gave to them from the fruit of strength, having promised to them the 
land of Canaan and He subjected to them the men of other nations— and agam how 


He Mipplied iheiii in the deseit and waterless place, and in addition He sent forth prophets 
to herald our Lord Christ Jesus, men who receiving in order and lot and due portion 
the spirit of Christ and suffering ills from the people were put to death. They were 
destroyed because they departed from the living Spirit after their own lawlessness ; they lost 
the eternal inheritance. And now, brethren, remain conquerors. Remain until having 
endured we attain the approach unto the Lord, and receive as innate and a shield 
of well-pleasing Christ Jesus, Him who planted Himself for our sakes on earth so as He is ; 
and accept the word, because a spirit of power in the last time . . .' 

4. fTr]pov<rav : this form of the imperfect was introduced in the second century b. c. ; cf. 
IVIayser, Grammalik d. griech. Pap. aus d. Plokmderzeil, p. 32.5. 

9. X^aft /j€r[a t]mi' aWotfwXav : 'ASiip is a Jewish month, not a proper name, and seems 
to be corrupt, probably for 'ApiiS the Canaanite (Numb. x.\i. i--;). 

1 2. Kap-rrnv rrjs 'i(7)(vos : a phrase apparently meaning ' spoil '. 

17. Kill has dots above it : cf 1. 37. 

23. The correction (if the supposed vestige of k above the line is really ink) may be by 
the first hand. 

25. avTjpeBriaav : the subject reverts to auroit in 1. i--,, i. e. the Jews. 

32-5. We have not been able to find a parallel for the expressions in these lines. 

36. ^vvra is used transitively, as if it were (f>va-avTit. The traces suit <f> very well. 
Cf. 6<^u for ((l>vae in two British I\Iuseum Greek inscriptions, nos. 1004 and 1074, discussed 
by J. A. R. ]\Iunro in Class. Rev. 1917. 142. 

37. ym: the dots above km indicating <leletion are clear, but the scribe does not seem 
to have also ]i]aced dots over yr)i. He (or the preacher) apparently meant tv ym. T!va 
cannot be read instead. For yt] as equivalent to human nature Bartlet compares Barn. vi. g 

cifOpciiTTOs yap yij iiniv na(T)^QVUa. 

38. Xoyov: i.e. the preacher's discourse probably, rather than the Gospel. 

1603. Homily Women. 

2 1 -I X 13-3 cm. Fifth or sixth century. 

The upper part of a column of a roll written in a large sloping uncial hand 
of the fifth or si.xth century with light brown ink. The subject is a diatribe, 
addressed probably to ascetics, against the female sex, through whom the Evil 
One is wont to e.xert his wiles. Examples from the Bible are cited in 11. i-ii, 
a passage which seems to be modelled on Hebr. xi ; the rest consists of a more 
general condemnation. A contraction ay{yi)Xovs and stops in the high and (more 
commonly) middle position occur. 403 (Apocalypse of Bariich; Part iii, Plate i ; 
fifth century) is a somewhat earlier specimen of this type of uncial, of which sixth- 
century specimens in smaller hands occur in P. Cairo Maspero ^^7097 verso 
(i. Plates xxviii-ix) and 67177 verso (ii. Plates xix-.xx). 

[. . . yvvaiK ? a tov Ovpiov 8i[ 

[ 1 . • Sia yvvaiKO'i to\v ao^coTUTOv 

[H 6\\[o\iJ.(oya Trpoi Tvapa^aaiv \napT]yayi ? 


Sia yvvaiKoi tov ai'8piun\aT0v Safiy^roor 
5 ^vprjaai €TV<pXcocre- Sta y[vi/atKov tovs 

viovs HXfi TOV lepecos eSa(l)[icras eKTave ? 

Sta yvvaiKos rov ovpavov [ 

eSico^e- Sia yvvaiKOS to[v 

laxTrjcp ey (pvX(aK)ri Secr/ievcTals 

lo Sia yvvaiKO'S rov navTon] 

Icoat'i'iji' aneTepev- tl S[i vp.Lv epco 

Sia yvpaiKOS Tovs ayXovs [ Ka 

T€J3aX€- Sia yvi'aiKOi 7rai'ra[y 

navras (povevei- navra^ aTyifia^ei ? 
15 yWT] yap avatSrjS ovSeroi (pe[iS€Tai ? 

ov AfviTTjf Tipa- ovK lepea o[v 

ov irpo(f)rjTr]v aiSeiTai- Tr[ai'Tcoi' 

KaKiaToi' yvvr] irovrjpa \n]avT[(ov 

iav Se Kai ttXovtov iyj] ttj Troi'[r]pia avrrji 
20 [avjifepyowTa- Siaaov to KaKo[v 

[.jro^co . [.] . aOepawiVTOv [ 

' . . . the wife of Uriah . . . ; by a woman lie turneil aside llie most wise Solomon (?) lo 
transgression ; by a woman he shaved and blinded the most brave Samson ; by a woman he 
dashed to the ground and (slew) the sons of Eli the priest ; by a woman he . . . and perse- 
cuted heaven ; by a woman he bound the most . . . Joseph in prison and . . . ; by a woman 
he cut off the head of the all . . . John. What shall I say lo you ? By a woman he . . . 
cast forth the angels ; by a woman he . . . all, he slays all, he dishonours all. For 
a shameless woman spares none . . ., honours not a Levite, reverences not a priest, 
not a . . ., not a prophet. A wicked woman is the worst of all (ills ?). the ... of all ; and 
if she also have wealth as her ally in wickedness, the evil is double . . .' 

7. There is hardly room for more than a participle at the end of the line. Gen. vi. 
I sqq. seems lo be referred to; cf 1. 12 and II Peter ii. 4. 

10. ■navTim'^ : or 77(ii'Toy[. wai/7o7i[nft; by itself is too short, but another word may have 
fo owed. 

12. Possibh' [(in- oiipiiriai Kii\T(jiaK( : cf I. 7, n. 

14. (irfi/jnfei is rather short and (iT[ifioi's -noui can be read ; cf. 1. 15. 

15. ^fftSfTnt : or 0e[t6o^e;'7; .... 

\h. u\y TTpe(rlivTn>ov and o[uk airooTokov are rather long, but (\i.> (iaaCKfn is possible. 

1 7. Perhaps ■n\avTav KttKwv or ftoMj'. 

2 1. ^ can be read in place of f. to fwor a6tpaTV(vTiiv is too short, but it is not quite 
certain that a letter is lost before to. 



1604. Pl.NiiAK, Ditliyrambs. 

i'r. I iSx2V5cm. Late second century. 

Plate I(Fr. i). 

To the valuable papyri of Pindar already obtained from Oxyrhynchu.s 
(cf. 1614. int.) have now to be added two fragments of a roll containing his 
dithyrambs, an important section of the poet's works hitherto represented only 
by the first 18 lines of an ode for the Athenians about Semele (Fr. 75 Schroeder) 
and a few short quotations. Two of these from the same dithyramb fortunately 
occur in the pap)-rus, thus establishing its authorship and character, while another 
Pindaric citation from an unspecified ode is also present. The larger fragment 
contains the middle portion of two columns, of which the first comes from a point 
near the conclusion of a dithyramb probably for the Argives, the second from the 
beginning of a dithyramb for the Thebans. The smaller fragment belongs 
to a third ode, possibly for the Corinthians, and may have preceded the other 
two instead of following them. According to the ,:itoy Wwhixpov prefixed to the 
Codex Vratislavicnsis there were two books of his dithyrambs, and the scholiast 
on Ol.yim. 25 states that in the ist (book) Pindar attributed the discovery of the 
dithyramb to Thebes (Fr. 71). This claim is likely to have been made in an 
ode for the Thebans, which may well have been the second of the three poems 
in 1604. If so, all three odes probably belong to the 1st book. Little can 
be made of the first and third dilh}'rambs owing to the loss of the beginnings of 
lines, but the first 30 lines of the second are nearly complete. In the recon- 
struction and interpretation of this difficult papyrus we arc indebted for a number 
of valuable suggestions to Professors J. B. Bury and A. F. Housman, Sir John 
F. Sandys, Mr. H. Stuart Jones, and Mr. F. Lobel. 

The dithyramb according to the usual view, which has recently been disputed 
by Professor Ridgeway,' was originally a song to Dion)sus, as the paean was a 
song to Apollo, but enlarged its scope in the time of Pindar's predecessors, Lasus 
and Simon ides. The latter wrote dithyrambs entitled Eiiropa and Meviiton, and 
perhaps one on Daiia'c, if the well-known fragment about her comes from 
a dithyramb rather than from a Opi'jros. Pindar and Bacchylides belong to 
the middle dithyrambic period. Later dithjrambic poets exercised greater 

' C/ass. Kcv. 1912. 1.S4-9, Class. Qua//. 191J. 241-2. 


freedom in their choice of subjects, and in Roman times ' dithyramb ' seems 
to have been apph'ed to any lyric poem which contained a narrative concerning 
the heroes ; cf. Pint. Dc Mits. lo and Jebb, Baccliyl. p. 39. Concerning the form 
and character of the dithyramb hardly anything was known before the discovery 
of the BacchyHdes papyrus ; but in this tlie last seven odes (xiv-xx Blass ; 
xix and xx are mere fragments) are generally regarded as dithyrambs, though 
this classification of them is not altogether free from doubt, for, while xvi is 
called a dithyramb by Servius (c. 400 a. D.) and in 1091, it is in fact a paean to 
Apollo, and xix might be a v\xivawi. The titles of these odes are 'A rr jjropt'Sai ?) 
'EAeVijj aTiaCniais, ['HpaKAJj^ji 'Hi'^eoi i] ©r/trevy, ©jjtrewj, 'Id ('A9?/ratoty),''Ioas (AaxfOat- 
IxovwLi), and [Kaaadvbpa?]. Dionysus is introduced only in xviii, the essential 
feature of these poems being the presentation of a myth. The metre is in 
only one case (xiv) dactylo-epitritic, which is generally employed in the epi- 
nician odes : but the division into strophes, antistrophcs, and epodes is found 
in four out of the five well-preserved dithyrambs, the fifth having only strophes. 
The introduction of ' free verse ' (anoKiKviiiva), not in strophes, is ascribed some- 
times to Melanippides, a younger contemporary of Pindar (so Jebb, o/>. cit. p. 46, 
Weir Smyth, Greek Mclic poets, liii), sometimes to Lasus, or to Pindar himself 
(Crusius in Pauly-VVissowa, Realciic. v. 1214) on the evidence of (i) Horace, 
Odes iv. 2. 10 sen per audaces nova dithyrambos verba dcvolvit nuvierisqiie ferttir 
lege soliitis, (3) Pseudo-Ccnsorinus, c. 9 Pindari . . . qui liber os etiam niimeris 
modos edidit, (3) Fr. 75 about Semcle, which is thought to be in ' free verse ', 
{4) Pindar's reference in Fr. 79 to his predecessors' poetrj' as ay^owoTivua, which 
has been supposed to imply division into triads as contrasted with his own verse. 
The new find, so far as it goes, does not contribute much to support Horace's 
description of Pindar's dithyrambs. Apart from crxotrore'reia (H. i) there are 
only two new words iva\ntv^ (I. 13) and a.Kva\j.TiTd (HI. 12). Dithyramb I 
was certainly arranged in triads, H either in triads or, less probably, in strophes, 
while the remains of HI are not long enough to show the arrangement. Hence, 
in the absence of any definite evidence for supposing that Fr. 75 is in ' free verse ', 
that fragment can quite well be regarded as parallel to the first strophe of H, 
which is of about the same length. Fr. 79 happens to occur in H. and the 
recovery of the context of that passage so important for the history of the dithyramb 
shows that Pindar was not referring to the distinction between triads and a-oAfAii- 
\i.iva. The metre of H, and probably of HI also, is dactylo-epitritic, that of I 
logaoedic, like Fr. 75. There are some irregularities (cf. H. 4-6, 8-11, 12, 13-14- 
15 16, 19, 30, nn.), but hardly more prominent than those in the epinician odes. 
With regard to the subjects of the dithyrambs, the title of H was ' Heracles 
the bold or Cerberus', an episode also treated by Stesichorus (Fr. 11), another 


exploit of Heracles being treated hy Bacchylides (cf. p. iS). I was appa- 
rently concerned with the deeds of an Argive hero, perhaps Perseus. The 
subject of III is uncertain, for the extant fragment comes from a part of the 
dithyramb in which Dionysus was apparently addressed. He is also promi- 
nent in n, and is referred to in I, so that Pindar's dithj-rambs were clearly 
more of the nature of Dionysiac odes than those of Bacchylides. There is no 
trace of any of the three odes having taken the form of a dialogue such as 
Bacchyl. xvii. On the whole the impression created by the new find is that 
Pindar as a dithyrambist was distinctly conservative, and the innovations 
introduced in the fifth century li.c. were not due to him. 

The papyrus was found in the mound which produced 1082-3, 1231, 1233-4 
&c., but it is doubtful whether it belonged to that collection of lyric and 
other texts. The handwriting is a medium-sized, rather square and sloping 
uncial resembling that of 223 (after A. D. 1S5; Part ii, Plate i) and the 
corrector who inserted two missing lines in 1234. 2. ii (Part x. Plate iv). That 
the main text was written before, not after, 200 is made probable (i) by the 
title of II, which is in a small cursive hand employing n-shapcd ?/ and appa- 
rently different from that of the main text, (3) by the numerous scholia in 
another, still smaller cursive hand, referring to questions of reading or interpre- 
tation. These marginalia, which are practically contemporary with the main text, 
are very similar to those in 1234, and seem to belong to the second century 
rather than the third. The main text was originally corrupt in not a few 
passages, e.speciallj- in III, and has been subjected to considerable revision. 
One of the correctors, who is responsible for the readings above the line in 
II. 37 and III. 9 av, is possibly identical with the original scribe or with the 
writer of the title, but more probablj^ different. A second corrector, to whom 
we should assign all the other interlinear readings, is certainly distinct from 
the original scribe, the first corrector, and the writers of the title of II and 
the scholia. A few mistakes of spelling have escaped correction ; cf. II. f^ - 
II, 31, nn. An elaborate coronis, similar to those in 1234, occurred at the 
beginning of II, but there is no paragraphus after II. 18, where it would be 
expected. Accents, breathings, and marks of elision or quantity are not 
infrequent, being mostly due to the first hand, but in some cases added by 
the second corrector. The stops (high points, except two in the middle 
position in I. 10 (?) and II. 14) seem to be all due to the first hand, like tiie 
occasional diaereses. 

I. Onlj- the upper part of the column is of any value, but the slight 
traces of 11. 25-38 are sufficient to show that they correspond to 11. 11-24: 
cf. the reference to the antistrophc in 1. 20 schol. Lines i-io evidently belong 



to the penultimate epode, wliich may have begun several lines earh'er. The 
concluding epode is lost. To judge by the length of lines in II, not more 
than lo letters (i.e. 4 syllables) would be expected to be lost before 11. 7-12, 
and 2 more letters before 11. 2-6 and 13-17. A shorter lacuna at the begin- 
ning (4 letters) would suit 1. 15, but in 1. 14 one or two words seem to be 
lost before aej^'trf. That the poem was for the Argives is indicated by the 
references in U. 6-7 to the building of a city (Tiryns or Mycenae ?) by Cy- 
clopes in Argive territory, and in 1. 9 to the house of Abas. The mention 
of the Gorgons in 1. 5 suggests that Perseus was the subject, and possible 
mentions of Danae and Acrisius or Proetus occur in 11. 1-3 ; but Phorcus himself 
(1. 5), apart from his being the father of the Gorgons and Graeae, is not known to 
be specially connected with the Perseus legends. The new strophe apparently 
introduces a change of subject. After a reference to the Dionysiac gathering 
and an address to the Muses, in 1. 15 begins a narrative of an adventure of 
some one who seems to be newly mentioned. Phorcus and probably the 
Gorgons again occur, and Bury would refer this passage, not 11. x-io, to 
Perseus. The approach of the end of the ode and some parallelisms with 
Fr. 75 suggest that Dionysus himself might be meant. Possibly Frs. 254 and 
284 are to be connected with this poem; cf. 11. i and 17, nn. The metre is 
logaoedic. Some of the lines fe. g. strophe i and 3) might be regarded as 
ending in dochmiacs, but these belong to tragedy rather than to lyrics. 
Strophe P^pode 

Some lines lost (?) 


 V^ '^ W 1^ o • 

1 w w — 

; W W — 
•u] — '^ <U 'U 
\_^ll^ — \_^ — \J — \^ — I 

. — rt 1^ — ^/ — 1^ 


? ^ w - ^ [ 

w w — [ 

w w w w — w 

,_ > 




 ^^ \-/ — 

— w - - 



II. This dithyramb for the Thcbans was evidently well known in antiquity 
on account of its opening reference to the (rxoivoTivna aoih] and a-uv Kt/tioijAoz', 
which is quoted by several writers (Fr. 79-') and enables 11. 1-3 to be re- 
stored. Another passage a few lines later (Fr. yg*"), quoted by Strabo alone, 
had been much corrupted in the MSS. of that author ; in a third fragment 
which occurs (Fr. 208) there are also marked differences between Plutarch's 
citations and the text of the papj'rus. Frs. <Si and 249 also have some points 
of connexion with II, but are probably from different poems ; cf. 1. i, marg., 
n. The ode begins with a contrast between the older and newer form of 
dithyramb in favour of the newer, which claims inspiration from the festival 
held in honour of Dionysus at Olympus itself (11. 1-8). There follows in 
II. 8-23 a picturesque and vivid description of the celestial festival, and a 
characteristically grandiloquent reference to the poet himself, which leads to 
the subject of Thebes and the ancestry of Dionysus, whose mother Semele 
was the daughter of Cadmus and Marmonia (11. 23-30). The poem breaks 
off shortly before the end of the antistrophe, where Dionysus himself was 
apparently being addressed. An epode probably followed ; cf. p. 28. The 
metre is dactylo-epitritic, like that of Fr. 74'', a corrupt quotation from 
Pindar found in Epiphanius, which has been assigned by Schroedcr to the 
dithyrambs. The main subject of the poem, Cerberus, is not reached. 


\.y ^ — \_/ \j — 

10 — ^ WW— WW 

. w W 

w w — W W " 

w w — w\_^ — 

WW — w w - 

— WW — >w w 

w ^^ — w v_/  

— w — 

I^ — w — w — w — w — w — 

— W \_/ — WW 

— w — — — WW — \J \^  

 ^j *WW — WW— — 

— W'W — W\_^ — ^^W- 

III. In this dithyramb about 10 letters seem to be missing at the beginnings 
of 11. j-J4, and about 5 more in 11. 15-25. There is no metrical correspondence 
in 11. 1-21, and whether 11. 22-6 correspond to some of 11. i-io or not is 
uncertain. Probably part of the fragment belongs to an epode, unless indeed 
this poem was in anoKeKvixtva. Dionysus is apparently addressed in 11. 6 sqq., 
being invited to join in the festival celebrated at a certain city. Rury would 


regard this as Corinth on the evidence of the ' neighbouring rock ' (1. lo) and 
some other indications ; of. 11. 14-1,',, iS, 23, nn. The metre is apparently 
dactylo-epitritic, with perhaps an admixture of other rhythms. The scheme 
of 11. 3-19 is 

1- ? w- wi^ 12 ]i^--^^^ 
5'jwwr— w;j — www Jw ^~[ 

Vr. 1. Col. i. Plate i. 

]\u^onii'ov8 . [ 
5 ^<Te7raTepayopyoy[ 

^KXcoTTCilVITToXia'a. . [ .]ay . a7]VTOOL8ioo"SioavTui 

yevapya/zfyaXcoi . . [ .Voii<ravT.ar8.T9u,<7^<,\oiK.<7|.'- 

ovTOO"p.€TaY eicroi 


10 |A66t'' T01J9"€^€yt^OyT90LKUKXoJ7T6Cr5lOVUCrLQKOV 


l^e//e!'- evapTTVKfcr 
15 ]yapev^opai-\eyoi'TiSe^poTot 

ai cpKoo- 

](popKOio'(rvyyoi'oi'naTep<t)i>  Kopdv 


]TrorT epoXoi" 

20 ] . laviav aiT[.] . ? €avir€pto-[ 

\f)a}fle^■ol'^  *^ 



25 ]epa;/ 



1 V — ^ \y\ ~ ^ 

Iw — [vjvjj 1-' — 

jc w^^ WW— : 

10 1 — WW w — www[ 

Iww? — WW — 


1 — w — w 
I w ? - w 

1 — w — w 

.]av . s T|v TO ot 8i* 8 oO(t(js) Sio( ) auT^, 
d]YVOTiCTavT€S 5i to(Oto) u>s o-oXoiKio-^o^O) 
OVTOS ^€Ta7p d^iouaiv : ets ot. 

crrp. /3 


] ctTTo .Jai'a[ 
]i' Xfyoi'Tcov [ 
]ioi' avaKTa [ 
] Xn^ofievov S . [ 
5 ]u(7e iraTtpa Topy6v\a)v 

KvyXainwv TrroAiy d/3[a o/ ? 
]j/ ku "Apyn peydXm . . [ 
]7rot ^vyirTfs ipaTo, Sopov 
]i't' "A^avTos, 

10 70VS IXefJ', Tovs' e|€vi5ovTO ot KiJKXwTrts. AiovvaioKov, 

1 iv\Saip6vuiv ^poptdSi OoLva. npinei 

2 ] KOpVCpdl' 

3 ] Oipiv evdpnvKii 

4 aej^er' «t/, MoTcxai, 6d\o? doi8dv 
15 5 vppi] yap txiyopai. XeyovTi SI (3pOTOi 

6 ]a (pvyovTa viv Koi piXav €pKO? dXpas 

7 Kovpdv ?] ^opKoio, (Tvyyovov nwrkpoii' 

5 jf 
9 Jttoi/ t' 'ipoXov, 

20 10 ] . iai' €a^ 

11 \pmpivov. 

12 — wjloi' 

13 1 Xeyo^evov) «n' tiri^iaxov. 

'4 -] 

25 X w— wwww JfpCtl' 


a'Tr[.] . o( ) fav Tr€pi<r[(r uis) 
7rp(o(rax©«v ?) k\ dvTicrTpoi4>Tls), 

aV7. /3 





Two lines lost 
] •••[ 


" ] 

] . vataTO 



Fr. I. Col. ii. Plate i. 







5 /fXo(<T£i'ea([ ^iSoTea 

oiat'Ppojxioy[. . . .]]'«»' 
KanTapaaKa[. .]ov8iO(Tovpavi8a.i 

ei'/ieyapo(o-t'[. .'\vTL-(T€iJivaifie.vKaTap-)(ii 
HaT(pnTapfi[. ^flXdipopi^oiTVfnravcov 

10 ej'(5e/c€^Aai5[. .]Kp6Ta\ ai6up.ii/aTe 
SaiavTro^avl. .]iatniVKaia- 

I 5 evS'oTrayKpa[. .yrKepavvoaap-nvtcnv 

nvpKeKti'r)[ jeyvaXiov 

(yXocr'aXKaecraa[.]fTraXXdSo[.]aiyi(T ' 


1 604. PIN DA R^ DL TH YRA MBS 35 

Two lines lost 

4 W WV-'W WV-ZW— — ] • • • [ 

5 WW — w — w — w — wlfj 

30 6 WW — w WW — w — If y 

7 w — w d<nr\a(TLa>9 

8 ] 

9 — ] TiKiTois, 

10 KiV — i\av o K€v iTfpicrcros. 

35 II ] . vaiaro 

12 JA"^" OdvaTov [ 

■3 ] 

14 jAaiy 



I II[p(i' fify ipm (TyoivoTiviid 7 aoiSa \ arp. a 

■1 Sid[vpdfxj3(i)v y Fr. 79 a 

3 Kal TO aaif Ki^SaXof avOpanroicriv dno vrofidTdiv, ) 

4 Siankn^T^o^vTai Si vvv Ipoh ?J nv\a[i kv- 

ww — 
5 5 KXoiat viaL- [. . . . eji'^orej 

6 o'iau Bpo/xiou [xeXejrar 

7 (coi TTapd aKd[TrT]ov Aibs OvpaviSai 

8 kv peydpoii t[a(T)d]i'Ti. crefiva ptv Kardp^n IcrTavTi \ 

9 fiaripi TTCcp p[iy]d\a p6p(3oi Tundvcop, 
10 10 (If Se Ki)(\aS\^ou] KporaX aiQoniva re 

11 5ay VTTO ^av[6aYLcn TTiVKats, 

12 tv 8\ NaiScof fpiySovnoi crTovayal 
i.^ jiaviai T aXaA[at'] t opivirai {pi)i^av-)(iVL 
14 aiii' kXovco. 

15 15 ef S' 6 TrayKpa[T7]]i Kepavi'oi dfiwuicoy 

16 TTVp KiKLVri^TaL 70 T ] EvVaXlOV 

17 eyxo^j aXKUiaad [rje iTaAAaSo^y] alyl's a....[ 

D 3 

Fr. 79 b 

Fr. 2c8 



fivpicai'tpoyya^fraiKXayyaiaSpaKoi'TOiv 9(t>[ 
ptfiAaS' ei(rivdpTefii(TOioTr6\of(T •oiAwoXoa 

20 (iv^aicT (vopyaLCT 


25 /XOl(T'ai'fCTTd(T'iX\dSLKa[.]X[ 



KaSfiovv\lrri[. . .Icr7rpa7ri5e(r[ 

vavS[. .]o-5'ax[ ]fx<f)a.f 

30 ^aireK[']tui5o|o[. . . .]av6pa>Trq[ 

Siovvff[. '.]6 .'[ .']T[.ly[ 


TTd . [ 


Fr. 2. 





5 ]»caTe[ ]or/ciiai/o|[/f]](Tco«' 

'\Tiai'Ti[. . .]avneXt^ot 

]TrX0K0l'CT[. . . .]l'Q)l'Kl(Tatl'(Ol' "''•n'M 

]Kpora(poi'[ ] 


ro ]ioi/TfaKOTTeXoi'yeiToi'a7rpvTavi . [ 


jCTTeYap/zaO" ToaeiriSopaTiBao- 


1 8 nvptcov (f>6oyyd(iTai K\ayyais SpaKOVTwv. o<t)[«wv 

I pificpa S' daif 'ApTifiti o/ottoXo? ^ev- oloiroXos 
20 2 ^at<T kv opyals 

3 BaKyJaii <pv\ov XiovTwv a[ypoTipa>v BpopLLca' 

4 6 5e KTjXelTai ^opevovaaia-i Ka\l 6tj- 

5 pcov ayeXaiy. e/xe 5" e^aipeTo[v 

6 KapvKa <T0(f>Q3i' enfcov 

25 7 Moia-' avkaracr ' EWdSi Ka[\]X[i)(^6pa) ? 

8 iv-)(op.ivov ^picrap/idrois o'iA/So;' re ? Orj^ais, 

9 ei/fla 770^' 'Appoviav [<p]diJ.a ya[/:/era«' 

10 KdSfj.01' ii\lfT][\aT\^ npaniSia[cn Xa-^ily KtS- ? 

II vdv A[io\i S' aK[ova(U d]fi(pdi', 

30 13 Kal TiK evSo^oii' Trap] dvOpd>Tro[is yevedy. 
w o — ^ — \^ — w^ 

13 Jiori/o-f, .']5. [ y[-]y[ 

14 fxarilpos ? 

rw — w — w — »-* — w — 


avT. a 





^/.To fih' ardent, 

] TToSa 

] /car«[ ]oi' Kvavo)(^tT(oy 

] real' r6[X€7]ai' /xeXi^oi 

] ttXokov a[ri<pa\v<ov Kiaatvoiv 

] KpoTa^ov 

'\i(cv iX6i (f>iXav Sfj (?) TToXea 

]ioi' T€ (TKoneXoi' yiirova TrpvTavi . [ 

^afia Kal arpaTid, 

] T aKvafinnl Kpifiairov, 

1? Te yccpua^ Tds tTrtSoparCSas. 

dv^^Tl ToO) 1TX[tKTWV 'i 



]it[. . . .]vToaa^p^)(^r]i/pvoiTona.[ 
15 ](oi'7TeXor 

]€;reTaXot(7r;jo[ , 

20 ] . 




]l'<TT0\ . [ 

25 ]\6,[ 

I. I. Either Anvd[as (referring to Perseus) or Aam[ov (e.g. r/jiVoy] arrb A., referring to 
Acrisius or Proetus) or Aava\wv or else ]a noSa v . [ can be read, the last letter being quite 
uncertain. Pindar Fr. 284 from Schol. A Homer S 319 niri) hi [Aavari), Sis cptja-iv nlu&apos Koi 

(iXXoi Tivfi, e(p6aprj vrro Toi" 7raTpn8(\(pov avTTjS npohnv, o6(v airois Ka\ a-raais fKU'tjdrj might refer 

to this dithyramb. 

3. Possibly ' Akp!(t'\iop. The first letter might be v or n, but hardly r, so that npoijrov 
(cf. 11. 6-7, n.) is unsatisfactory. Lobel suggests Ai>k]wv, referring either to Proetus or 
lobates, king of Lycia, who restored Proetus. 

4. The doubtful S can be a or X. For Xd^opemv cf. Pj. ku. 9 tok (sc. 6piimi>) . . . ilU 

"KeilSopfUov dvcTrei'di'l avv KapaTto. 

5. The letter before a-e can be f, 1, a-, v, or m. For Phorcus (= Phorcys), the fither of 
the Gorgons, cf. 1. 17 and p. 30. 

6. Bury suggests npoyovov t€ KvWwtioiv, Phorcus being grandfather of Polyphemus 
through his daughter Thoosa. 

6-7. The scholium is obscure, but seems to refer to the distinction between 01 ( = iavra) 
and oi (= avTu), and 01 with or without an accent presumably occurred in the te.\t. Whether 
the traces of a word following pcyaXmi belong to the text or a scholiutn is uncertain ; t[ is 

possible. Bury proposes tttoXis- cip[d 01 | he&prjro (or rtrvKTo) Kfivaju fV "Apyei peyaXwi tJx"?- 

The city in question was probably either Tiryns, which was built by the Cyclopes for 
Proetus, as described in Bacchyl. x. .i^g-Si, or Midea or Mycenae, of which Perseus was the 
legendary founder (Paus. ii. i.j^. 4), being assisted by the Cyclopes (Schol. Eur. Or. 965). 

8-9. If fvye'i'Tf r is to be taken literally, m]noi and ikoJkt (Stuart Jones) are probable ; 
but epara Suggests that the context may concern music, and Bury proposed tpoppiyyi S" vp]uoi 

^vyfVTfs (para bopnv | a^fov tlva tTKtof^vT "A/3afT0ff, comparing Hoiner X 334 KT]\7j&pui fi' €a)(nvTo Kara 

peyapa rrKiofpra. vp]mi is, however, unsatisfactory, for if the doubtful letter was v the middle 
stroke ought to have been visible, so that tt (kopJjtol .? Bury) or >; or . i is preferable. The 
' house of Abas ' means the palace at Argos ; cf. Py. viii. 55 'Afiavrot eipvxdpovs dyvias. 

10. The stop after ]\e(v is not quite certain, and h can be read for X. Bury proposes 
Tovc d' acrp fxijjXefi', based on the scholium, in which tous is apparently quoted from the text 


]7r[. . . .jjToy av\i]v pvono 7ra[ 
15 ]ct)r TTiXoi 

]Aai' nouoi yopoiv [ 
jeey t' doiSai, 
]oio (pvXoy co[ 
]€ TTiTaXoLS rjp\lvol'i ? 
20 ] . 


]/zioj' /7r[7r 

]p aroX . [ 
25 ]A^4 


and AiovuaioKov refers to a diflerent word. For «i}]\efi' cf. II. 22 and the Homeric verse 
cited in 11. 8-9, n. The objection to it is that Pindar elsewhere uses the contracted forms 
in imperfects. 

1 1- 1 3. A new strophe begins here. Bury proposes something like dXA' dvSpHv d^Sat/iovav 

^poiitddi OoLva npinci (pyottrt Xoywi*] Kopv(pdv «7rt;^6)pio((Tt] 6fp.<i'. Cf. I\'efH. ix, 8 aXX* dva ptv 
^po^iuif (poptxiyy, di'd 5 avXov en iivTav i'tpa-op^v ImTioyv t'UdXwf Kopv^dv, 

13—14. evdfinv^ is not found elsewhere, but tXi/cann-u^, Kvavd/^nv^, XmapdfiTTv^, and xP^'<^dix7TV^ 

occur in Pindar. For df]|tT* (Bury, Stuart Jones) cf 0/. vi. 10,(5 'M"" ^' I'M""" ''($' fVTfpwes 
avdoi. Before it Bury proposes Hepad vw, in order to explain vw in 1. 16. B/jojiiM vw is also 
possible ; cf 1. 17, n. 

15. vppi\ was suggested by Bury, who proposes an epithet of doihov, e.g. KKyrdv, 
before it. 

16. Regarding viv as Perseus, Bury proposes Ai/Srat Tiehiyi (or yuaXJn) ^iiyo^ra. iti;p]a 
(Stuart Jones) is also possible. If Dionysus, who according to Paus. ii. 22. i attacked 
Argos from the sea, were meant (cf. 1. 17, n.), fi((Tp\d (Lobel) would be suitable; cf. Eur. 
Bacch. 610 sqq. It is not clear whether ipKoi was simply omitted by the first hand or was 
intended to take the place of akpai. The corresponding line of the antistrophe hardly 
projects as far as would be expected if it contained equivalents of both words ; but the 
collocation ipKwi uXpas occurs in Py. ii. 80 ufidnTiiTTus elpi 0fXXos ws Inep f. a., where 
S\pas is usually connected with djidimoTOi, not epKos, and tpKos is thought to mean 
'net'. This parallel makes us disposed to retain both words, and to regard them as 
a periphrasis for the sea, like the scholiast on Py. ii. 80, who explains ffixos as fTncpdveia, 
' surface '. 

1 7. Kopav points to a word like it in the text, either a synonym or koimiv differently 
spelled {Kovpdi/?) or wrongly accented (cf. II. 19, n.). The Graeae or more probably the 
Gorgons (cf. I. 5 and p. 30) must be meant, and the line may have begun with e's followed by 
a word implying 'abode' (rac?). Pindar Fr. 254 from ApoUodorus ii. 38 airai 8i nJ vip^m 

TTTrjvd el^ov ntSiXa koi ttju Kifiiaw^ i)v (fiaatv elvai nr]pav. Uivdapos §€ kol Hci'oSo? cV 'AcTTTifit CTrt TOi 

Ilepo-e'Ms ktX. may have referred to this dithyramb, o-^yyoi'oi' irarfpav is obscure. If the stops 
before and after these words are correct, they seem to be in apposition to viv, which is 


unsatisfactory. As Stuart Jones remarks, <Tvyyovov would be expected to agree with a word 
like upfTav in the next line, nnrcpaiv is probably the plural of amplification ; cf. Fr. 75. 10 

Bpoptov ov T Ept/3onz/ re /3poroi KdKio}Xiv^ yovov VTrnrcoi/ fikv Trarepoiv /zeATre/ifi' yvvaiKoii^ t( Ka5/ifiai' 

efxoKov (v. 1. Sene'Xijj'). The resemblances between this passage and 11. 15-19 {liporoi . . . Ttaripiav 
. . . (pii\ov) suggest that wv might be Dionysus, not Perseus; cf. 1. 16, n. 

18. '[v is not visible on the facsimile. 

19. ]rroi/ : or ] . wv. p. of ffioXor is corrected from t. 

20. The marginal note refers to edi>, which ' is rejected {?), being superfluously introduced 
from the antistrophe ', i. e. 1. 34, which ends (]dv and also contained a superfluous word. The 
last letter of '"'•[.J . o( ) might be 8 or X, but air[oP]dX(XeTai) and di7o8o(Ki)ji,d5€Tai) are not 
satisfactory readings. 

23. The of X«Yo(|i«vov) ib not raised above the line, as would be expected if the word 
is an abbreviation ; but jXtro is inadmissible. 

28. In the margin are traces of a scholium. 

34. f](li': cf. 1. 20, n. TO K«v -n-epio-o-ov would be expected ; cf. 1. 6, schol. 

II. ' Heracles the bold or Cerberus. For the Thebans. 

Formerly both dithyrambic song issued from the lips of men long drawn out and the 
sigma under suspicion ; but now new gates have been opened for sacred choirs : they (sing .?), 
knowing what manner of festival of Bromius the celestials by the very sceptre of Zeus 
celebrate in their halls. Beside the majesty of the great mother of the gods begins the 
beating of drums; therewith swells the music of the castanets and the torch blazing below 
the yellow pine-brands ; therewith resounding laments of the Naiads, wild dances and 
shouts are stirred in the fury of tossing the neck on high. Therewith moves the almighty 
thunderbolt breathing fire, and the sword of the god of War, and the valiant aegis of Pallas 
rings with the hissing of countless serpents. Lightly comes Artemis the lone huntress, who 
has yoked in the Bacchic revels the race of most savage lions for Bromius, while he is 
enchanted also by the dancing throng of beasts. i\Ie too, a chosen herald of wise words, 
the Muse raised up to pray for prosperity (?) for Hellas with its fair dances and chariot- 
pressing Thebes, where of old, as the story tells, Cadmus by high design won sage Har- 
monia as his bride, and she hearkened to the voice of Zeus and became the mother of 
oflspring famed among men. O Dionysus, . . .' 

I marg. 9pao-[v)s] 'HpaKXfjs -ii Ktpptpos : Heracles is called $paa-vpdxai'Oi in O/. vi. 67. For 
other examples of alternative titks of dithyrambs cf. p. 28. It is tempting to connect with 
this ode Pindar Fr. 249'^ (Schol. AB on Homer * 194) 'Hpa^Xiis els "Al&ov KareMai' in\ nv 

Kepfiepoi' (rvveTV)(e MeXeaypw to) Olviuis, ov Kai ^etjOevroi yijpat tiiv d8cX(jitjv Iljidvetpav, tiTaviXBuiV els (jiois 
€(nrev(rev els AtVwXini/ Tipos OiVf'a, /<arnXa/3u)i' de pvrjiyTevopevov Tr]v Koprjv *A;^fXo)oi/ rov nXtjaiov noTapoVj 
SteTrdXaiaev avrat . . . doKel de TOiv ev tij 'EXXnSi TTorapdv peyirrms eivai 6 A;^cXa>os' 5to Ka\ irat' 
vBoip TTj TovTOV TTpofTr^yopia KoKeiTai, i) 'i(TTopia napa Htvddpai, But Fr. 249" (221. ix. 14), which 

seems to belong to the passage in question about the Acheloiis, is in a different metre, 

TTp6a6a pev (T * \)^e\o)i(>v ruv doihuraTov evpoiirla Kpdva MeXfavoj? re noTupov poai rpecjioif KaXapoi^, 

A fragment concerning Heracles from a dithyramb (Fr. 81) is quoted by Aristides ii. 70 

oTt Kat erepwOi pepvrjpevns 7tep\ avriov ev ^idvpdp^io Tivi tre 6* eyw irapdptv [Trap* nppiv Boeckh, 
Tvapd viv Bergk*), <^r;(rtV, olvew pev, y7]pv6ttT}y to de pj} Ail (At Hermann) (plXrepoif aiyutpi jidpTrnv. 

The metre of this from alvea . . . ndpnap corresponds to II. 1-3 *:ii3|, and the words preceding 
alveo) might correspond metrically to the end of an epode ; but tiie capture of the oxen of 
Geryones is a diflerent exploit, and Fr. 81 is likely to belong to another dithyramb. Fr. 169 
(Plato, (lori;. 4S4 b, Aristides, ii. 68, Si hoi. Pind. A\///. ix. 35 vopos 6 TrdvTuv fiaa-iKtis kt\.), 
which mentions Geryones and is in dactylo-epitritic metre, but does not correspond to the 
extant part of II, and Fr. 1C8 (Athenaeus, x. 41 1 b, Philostratus, Jmm. ii. 24 S(o)ta ffoCip deppit 
(trX.), which refers to the devouring of an ox by Heracles at the house of Coronus, an 


episode connected wiih the capture of the Cretan bull (Apollod. ii. 5. 7), and is not in 
dactylo-epitritic metre, certainly have no connexion with our dithyramb. 

I— 3(:= Fr. 79^)- (- f . Strabo x. 469 fiapTvpf; 5' m irotrjTal riov toiuvtcov vnuvoiuiv (sc. Con- 
cerning the Curetes and C'orybantes)' o re yap YlivSapns c'v tm Siffvpaplia ov 1) cipx') I'p'"' p^^" 
(Ipne (rxot-voTopias ^o-;^oii'orfVfta cdd.) t' notSa y^'. 1, aoifinl) didvpapliiov \-(S<o most IMSS.), pvrjadeii 
bi (fie oni. most edd.) ritiu nep't Tov ^ifJwuQV vpvajf twi' Tf 7Ta\(U(xiv Ka\ twv varfpov, fieTcijiai utto 
rovTQ>v (pTjiTi' (Tot p{v Kardp^fL (^KnTiipxeiv edd.) parcp napa fieyaXai [V. 1. pfyaXoi : peydXa irt'tpa edd.) 
polpjioi (pop^m edd.) KvpjiidXaiv, (v be Kf)(\dbwv ((c«;(\a8fiv edd.) xpuraK' aldopiva re bas (Siiis SOme 
edd.) iinu ^uvBaiai Trfixats [=: 11. 8— II), Trjv Koivwvlav ri>v TTfpX Toi' Atovvcrov aTvobfixdevTwr vopipav 

TTtipa To7ff '^EWtJO'L Koi TOiV TTUph Tols ^pv^\ T7ip\ TrjV pTJTtpa TWV OfU}V (TVVOiKetOiV aWTjXois, AthCH. 

X. 455 b nii'bapot be TTpoi t^v iicnypo7roiJ}0('!(Tav <obr]P, uis 6 avros (j)t](Tt KXinp^os, oiove'i ypl<j>ov Tivos 
€1/ peXoTToila TTpojiXrjBeiToSj wr ttoXXwi' tovtco TTpniTKpQvutnwi' bia to bwaroi^ (oSt'caroi/ edd.) eivat ano- 
(r\(cT6at TOV aiypa Ka\ bid to pi) boKipd^eiP, eTvoi-qae (corrupt .'')' Trp'ii' pev eipne (rxoiPOTevia {]. -Tevdd) 
T dotbd Km TO crdv Ti/3or(Xoi/ (xi'/iSryXoi' edd.) dvffpanoii, X. 448 c KaduTvtp oi aaiypoi KaXovpevoi Tav 
ypt(f>o>v' odev Km Tlifbapos npos to & e'noirjirep <ibi)v (corrupt ?), \\. 467 a to be adv dvTi toO aiypa 
^wpiKws eipfjKtiatv, ol yap povtriKoi. KaOdirep TzoXXdKts ^ApioTO^evdi (prjfit, to aiypa Xeyeiv TrtiprjTovi'Ti* 
bid TO aKXrjpoaropov eivni Ka'i uveTtiTr'jbeioi' nvXa' . . . Ka'i Uivbapoi be (jitjai' Trp\v pei> i;p"e axnii'oTepeid 
T aaibd Kot to adi' KljibqXov dno aTopiWav, DionvsiuS, Di' comp. verb. 14 e\a\ b' o'l Km daiypovs 
oXas (ibds iiToiovV br]Xol be tovto Ka\ Ilivbapos ev oij (pijar irp'iv pev rjpTte axuivoTevii (pavrjeira (or 
other corruptions) bi6vpdp^u>p koI to adv ki'/SSijXok (w 1. KilibaXov) avdpdiTron (v. 1. -TTOi). From 

these varying forms of 1. 3 Hermann restored Vai t6 adv xilibnXov dvdpdtiroiatv dn-o aropdraiv. 
The termination of the line is wanting in both 11. 3 and 18, but there is no reason to doubt 
Hermann's restoration; cf. for the metre 1. 7. 

1. (T;(o«'OT«Vfia : this is formed on the analogy of tjbver:ei(i, povaoyevem, &c., and means 
' stretched out like a rope ', ' prolix ' ; cf. Philostr. Heroic. \. \\ pr\ unoTtheiv (tq aaparu) prjbe 
axoivoTevfj epydCeadai. It does not refer to division into triads, for II itself is divided into 
triads or strophes; cf. p. 28 and 1. 3, n. 

2. The division doi\bd Sidvpdpffoiv would be expected from the arrangement of 11. 19-20, 
but ba (or b<j) b[ does not suit the traces of 1. 2, and the real dividing-point of the feet is 
probably after doibd here and fei- in 1. 20. 

3. <eai TO ad[v KiffbaXov : the meaning of this is a long-standing difficulty. Athenaeus and 
Dionysius (cf. II. 1-3, n.) supposed that it referred to the aba'i daiypoi, i. e. of Pindar's pre- 
decessor, Lasus, Athenaeus x. 455 c proceeding to quote a line without a- from Lasus' hymn 
to Demeter. The epitoinator of Athenaeus, followed by Eustathius, p. 1335. 52, misunder- 
standing this, attributed the composition of odes without a to Pindar himself Boeckh and 
Dissen translate KiiSbrjXov 'praviim ', supposing that it refers to the mispronunciation of a in 
the Dorian dialect (so also Donaldson and Weir Smyth), and that Pindar meant to contrast 
the old-fashioned odes in which o- was used with the new kind without a invented by Lasus, 
Pindar himself reverting to the old-fashioned type. Sandys (translation of Pindar in the 
Loeb series), connecting KilibrjXov (sc. rjv) with uidpojTioiaiv imd aTopdrav, translates ' when 
the sibilant san was discarded from the lips of men', i.e. was rejected as spurious. 
The mutilated condition of 11. 4-5 leaves the context obscure in some points, espe- 
cially as to the precise nature of the transition to the account of the Dionysiac festival in 
Olympus (cf 11. 4-6, n.) ; but it is tolerably certain that the new kind of dithyramb which , 
is contrasted with the old is not the dithyramb of Lasus, but of Pindar himself, as is also 
shown by the definite reference to himself in 1. 23. Hence Boeckh's view of Pindar's 
relation to the two kinds of dithyramb is just the opposite of what the context demands. 
Sandys's translation gives the riglit kind of sense, but dvBpamoiaiv dm aropaTuv is much more 
likely to be dependent on epne than on KijibaXov, and the position of r indicates that epTze, not 
VK, is to be supplied with KifibaXov. We are disposed, therefore, to regard to adv KifibaXov as 


a reference to Lasus' (iSa\ I'ldiyfioi, adv being used as the equivalent of a-lyiia, and ki/38uXoi/ 
comparing it to base coin which when produced is rejected, and implying a contrast with 
Pindar's own use of o-, which was unrestricted. 

4-6. 8in7rfV[T]a[i'Tat bk and iriiKai were suggested by Sandys, vvv by Lobel, )cij]|icXo<(rt by 
Bury. The slight vestiges towards the end of the line suit 7rDXn[i rather well, especially 
the n and X (for which a is the only alternative) ; but the preceding lacuna is rather short 
for the proposed supplement. The metre of 1. 4 is fixed by 1. 22. For opening the 

' gates ' of song cf. Ul. vi. 27 wuXas vjivuiv uvairlTvafKp^ JVem. ix. 2 livnTTfTTTaufvat ^(Ivwv veviKavTai 
Bvpai, Bacchyl, Fr. 5. 2 oi'8« yap paarov apprjTwi' iirkaiv TTvXas e^evpe'tp. icul/cXoitri refers tO the 

kvkXioi x"P'><- of the dithyramb. To find an anapaest short enough for the lacuna before 
fjiSoVfs in 1. 5 is difficult. If ni\a[i is right, e]l86Tfs must belong to a new sentence and may 
refer to x°P°^ (e-g- something like o-o^oi ol f]iS.); but Bury would connect it with the 

preceding line, suggesting iianeTt[p]u[xatTt S' <_■ kijJkXokti veav [a-o(j)oi fS fjiSdxfs I olav 

Bpoptoi [iSyaj/ kt'K., and comparing A'em. ix. 3 aXX' i-niav y\vKvv vp.vov npuaa-iTe and Eur. 
Bacch. 471 Ta 8' opyi cVt-i tiV Ihiav txovTa (Toi ; viav for vim, Bpopws for Bpo/Jioii, and iSleav for 

TfXejraj' are possible readings ; but xfXfjrai/ (Sandys) suits XaravTi particularly well, and the 
metaphor of the gates is attractive. For Bpofilov [rtXtjra:/ cf Py. ix. 97 piKdamra o-e koX 
T(\(Tais ipi'nit e'p llnXXaSnf ilSov. Bpopiwi is inadmissible. The metre of 1. 5 is somewhat 
abnormal. After a choriambus is an anapaest and a cretic, or else an ionic a minore and 
iambus. For anapaests in dactylo-epitritics cf. e.g. Py. i. 2, 6, iii. 4 ; for 'iambic catalexis ' 
cf. 0/. vi. 5, Ni-m. viii. 14. 

7. The last syllable of OipavlSai was marked long by the first hand, short by the 
corrector, who wished to indicate (rightly) that the word was nom. plur., not dat. sing. ; cf 
I. 8 eparai. The Syllable is long as a matter of fact, but there was no point in marking it 
long at the end of a line, unless indeed the first hand wished to connect it with iv in 1. 8 
and scanned -pavX&ai iv together in spite of the hiatus. But, as Housman remarks, the 
metre of 1. 8 corresponds to e.g. Py. iv. 296 SmSaXfav (puppiyya jiaa-T<iC<iv TroXiVm?, and in each 
case the phrase — w ^^ — w w — comes both before and after, so that ai is to be regarded as 
merely a slip. 

8. The last syllable of the line seems to stand by itself (cf. the preceding n.), as 
frequently in Bacchylides' dactylo-epitritics. In Pindar's there seem to be instances of 
hypercatalexis in Frs. 29-30 (from an vpvos). 

i[<j(T)(i]i'Ti : there is not room for ara in the lacuna and the marginal to-TdvTi indicates 
that the main text was in some respect difl"erent. If there had been a wrong accent over i[ it 
ought to have been visible, and there is no doubt that the first hand read iVdcTi, a Doric form 
not found in Pindar but quite suitable in itself la-iivn would make sense (cf e]l86Tes in 1. 5), 
but laTuvTL is preferable. 

8-1 1. iTfpva . . . nevKMs : this passage (Fr. 79^; cf 11. 1-3, n.) is quoted by Strabo 
with several corruptions or variations, o-oi for o-e/jw, par^p mipd for parepi ndp, polpjioi KvplidXwv 
for popiSoi TvpTrdvwv, and Kex^dSui/ for /<f';(Xa8[oi'] (or -8[f 1']). Misled by a-oi, modern editors were 
unable to restore the passage on the right lines. The confirmation of the schema Pindaricum 
Kardpxfi. . . . popfioi against emendations is interesting. Another instance occurs in 1. 13 paviai t 
dXaX[ai'] T opiverai, which had been obscured in the quotations of this by Plutarch. Two more 
occur in 11. 18-19 of the fragmentary dithyramb for the Athenians (Fr. 75); in the epinician 
odes this construction is rare. Kvp(id\av may have stood in Sirabo's text of II, but Ti/n-draif is 
likely to be right ; cf. Catullus, Afys 9 typtvium, tubam, Cybe/le, tua, mater, inilia, which may 
even have been an imitation of this passage. Bergk referred tolhisdithyrambFr.8o,a quotation 
from Pindar in a Herculaneum fragment of Philodemus, De pielate, which is restored Kv/3e'[Xa] 
paT\(p 6iui\^. The metre may well be dactylo-epitritic, but there is no place for Fr. 80 in the 
context of the reference to Cybele in 11. 8-9. Owing to the lacuna at the end of 1. 27 the 


correction of Tvniravwv to Tiiravtuv is not absolutely certain, for ya[pvti (Bury) can there be 
supplied instead of ya[n(Tai> (Housman) ; but, as Housman observes, 1. 9 seems to be 

unrhythmical as it stands, since w v^ In this metre is not elsewhere followed by w — , 

unless there is a break between them, as at 01. vi. 4-5 and Bacchyl. viii. 9-10, and scribes 
have often written riiji-navov where authors did not ; e.g. Hom. Hymn. xiv. 3, Eur. Hel. 1347, 
Aesch. Fr. 57. 10, .\poll. Rhod. i. 1139, Anth. Fal. vi. 165. 5, and in the Catullus passage 
cited above the MSS. give tympanum against the metre. With Tvaavuav 1. 9 will have the 

rhythm of 01. vi. 2 Kwvat ws ore daijruv fiiynpov. The point of |ai[5a]r(ri as applied to nevKais 

is not clear: Dissen e-xplains it by the colour of the fire. With 11. 10-12 cf. Soph. Atttig. 

1 1 26— 9 (re S* vTTip di'\6(pov TTeTpas aTepoyj/ oTrotTTf XiyvCs, '4v6a KwpvKiai <TT(i^ovt7i Ni'/i0ot 

12. iv S( NniSoj^ : — w — w corresponds to — w (apparently) in 1. 30; cf. 1. 19, n., 

and e.g. O/. iii, epode i, 4, 5. 

13-14. These lines are thrice quoted by Plutarch, (i) Quae's/, conv. i. 5. 2, (2) vii. 5. 4, 
(3) De clef. orac. 14, copied by Euseb. Praep. evang. v. 4, p. 185, and Theodoret, Graec. 
aff. cur., ed. Gaisford, p. 374. In (2) pavlms t akoKah t opivoptvoi occurs, the quotation 
being accommodated to Plutarch's sentence; (i) and (3) have upivopiv^v for opiVtrai ; (i) has 
epiav)^(vi, (2) and (3) piij/avxct for vy}/avx(i'(: Both opivopivav (which would correspond to 
NafSwK in I. 12) and pi^^aixci- seem to be ancient variants (Theodoret, op. at., p. 375 coins 
a verb pi-^avxoeiv from the quotation), and pi\lrnvx(VL, which occurs nowhere else, is, as 
Housman remarks, more appropriate than v^^ravxci to both KKnva and Noi'Smf : cf. 
Catull. Atys 23 ubi capita j\latnades vi iaciunt hcderigerae, Cic. // Vor. iii. 49 cerviculam 
iactaturum, Eur. Bacch. 864 hipav ei? alBipa hpoaepov plnTovaa. The metre, as he observes, 
does not help much in deciding between pi\j/nvx(fi and iyl/avxci, for though with pi^p-avxci- 

the scheme ofl. 13 v^w — ww— i^ — w w^ corresponds to the last verse of the 

epodes in Py. iii, e.g. 1. 23, — w w — can generally take the place of — w , and is pre- 
ceded by w vj and followed by — v.^ — in e.g. Avw. xi. 14. piv|'-(or v^-)avxfvi is appa- 
rently the end of a member of the rhythm with syllaba anceps, and a member of the rhythm 
also comes to an end after avv (cXoW, as the hiatus there proves, so that these two words have 
to constitute a whole member ; cf. \p^aaKopm\ in 01. vii. 9 and |aimra5| in Py. v. 7. The 
alternative is to write ^vv xXoi/w, but there seem to be only two examples of ^w in Pindar's 
MSS., and not one is established by metre, though cf. 1614. 9. 

(iXaX[m]: the first hand seems to have written aXaX[u]\a originally. The final Xa was 
then crossed out and i no doubt added above [a], but whether the scribe himself or a 
corrector made the alteration is uncertain. Several of the MSS. of Plutarch have nWai for 
d^aXai, but the third letter here is more like a than X, and the loop of it, though narrow, does 
not seem to be a correction. 

I5~l6. Kepavt'us (J/JTTrt&jy nvp : cf. Fr. 1 46 nvp TTi'eovros a re (Pallas) Kcpavvov ttyxKTTa bf^iav 

Kara x^'^P" ^arpoi (ij/itVn). In 1. 15 — w — w occurs twice, very likely as equivalent to — w 

in the antistrophe (lost); cf. 11. 12 and 19, nn. ^ 

17. oAKiHo-cra : in O/. ix. 72 and Py. v. 71 d'SKnivTai is found, but the metre here requires 
Of to be separate syllables. The scholium perhaps indicates a variant, but may be no more 
than a.lyi[s accented; cf. 1. 19, n. 

18. This verse is a ^rrjcnxopewv. o^^liuv is a gloss on bpaKovrav. 

19. plp<pa 8' (hiv: — vj — w here corresponds to — w in 1. i ; cf 11. 12, 15-16, nn. 

oiWiiXor : this word, which seems to have been wrongly spelled but rightly accented by 

the first hand, was wTongly accented by the corrector; cf 1. 17 and I. 17, nn. oioTriiXot 
Baipwv (unnamed) occurs in Py. iv. 28. 

20. The syllable (cv- really belongs to 1. 19; cf 1. 2, n. 

21. The misspelling ^uKxaais is not corrected. ii[ypoT(pai> was suggested by Sandys and 


Bury; cf. Acm. iii. 46 XiovTiamv ayporepois. B/jofiiM (Bury) IS required to explain d 8/ in 1. 22. 
The metre is practically certain ; cf. 11. 1-3, n. 

22-3. Ka[\ Orjlpav: SO Housman and Bury. The a of Ka[i is nearly certain, the only 
alternative being o. The sentence is suggested by the menlion of lions in the line above. 
Bacchus is flattered not only by the attentions of his fellow-gods, but also by the worship of 
brute creatures. dye'Xai \(6vtwii occurs in Find. Fr. 239. 

25-6. Cf. Fr. 151 MoifT avit)Kf tie. Kn[A]\[i;(o'pa> and o[X/3oi' re were suggested by Bury; 
Sandys proposes k<i\\ yYiVfdv wiih o\Ik6v r€, but the traces of a letter after Ka\^ suggest a, d, \, 

or v. For the late position of T( cf. JVtm. ix. 34 jrapa m^olioais Inirois re. That Bij^aif 

occurred at the end of 1. 26 is clear from what follows (cf. Fr. 195 fiappare ei]da), but 
a restoration in which evxopfvou meant ' boasting myself rather than ' praying for' would be 
more appropriate. //'[ynX/xa is, however, inadmissible in 1. 26, the o before the lacuna being 
almost certain. For the metre of that line cf. 1. 7, n. 

27. The first hand wrote nor appoviav. <j>\iiia ya^perdi' is due to Housman, who 
corrects Tvundvav in 1. 9 to Tvndvav: Bur}', retaining rvfinuvav there, proposed (l)\apa yciypiei: 
cf. 11. 8-1 1, n. The first hand wrote (^]a/ici' ya[ : the first corrector then added a above the line, 
deleting e and perhaps v also ; cf. III. 9, n. As Housman remarks, a verb does not seem 
necessary with <pap.a (sc. fon) : cf. Aesch. Septem 2 1 7-18 d\X olv Btovs tovs rrjs dXot'o-ijr TioKfos 
cxXfiVfii' Xo-yot, and <f>dTis in Pindar himself (according to the usually accepted emendation of 
Botha) in Is. viii. 40 Amxi'Sa, Sv r (vaefiitTTaTov (pans 'IooXkuii Tpd(p(tv TTfSlov, and uhi fama in 
Slat. Theb. i. 699. 

28. in|/i[oTni]f could be read in place of iil^jjfXm]?. There is little doubt about the 
s, T being the only alternative. Xax^v Kf6-] (or «-y-])ji/di' is due to Bury. Nonnus, Dionys. 
iv. 28 sqq., represents Harmonia as at first reluctant to marry Cadmus. Housman prefers 

("yfiK o-f/ijlrav, comparing Ncm. v. 47 a-efxvav B(Tiv \lrj\ia 6'. Aesch. Prom. 560 ayaya 

'HiTidvav . . . Sdfiapra, and, for the present infinitive with nori in a past sense, Py, vi. 21-4 
rdti TTOT . . . (j}ai>Ti . . . napciiui'ii'. (Tepfdi has however Occurred in 1. 8. For npamSes in 
connexion witli a suitor he compares Is. viii. 30 dXX' oii a-tpiu (IfijipoToi TeXea^au evvdv dedv 

30. fxjRo^o[v : if ^ is right, the parts of it were joined instead of being written, as else- 
where in 1604, as a dot between two strokes. The second o is also doubtful, a being quite 
as suitable. But the position of the accent over ev strongly favours fti8o|o[i', for (vSoKi.[puv and 
-ki)[toi' are inadmissible, and though a crossed out t might be read in place of 5, (vSoTe[ipai' is 
not a known wortl and (v8u£t'^k[iixov is unsatisfactory apart from the wrong accent. At the 

beginning of the line — ^^ corresponds to — w — >../ in 1. 12 ; cf. 1. 19, n. Trap'] dv6pQ)jio[is 

yfvidv is due to Bury. itp-iXav may be substituted for y^vdv, she being in any case the 
person'chiefly meant, as is shown by the reference to her in 1. 32. 

31. Aioi/vo-[ must be vocative, for any other case would fill up the lacuna, leaving no 
room for the letter preceding 6, which apparently had an acute accent and was therefore 
a vowel. Probably c^iavva\e was written and the e not elided; cf. rt opivfrai in 1. 13. If the 
two letters in the lacuna formed a diphthong, the accent ought to have been more to the left. 

32. iJiaTf[pos : i.e. Semele; cf. 1. 30, n. o could be read in place of e. 
III. I. The doubtful X can be v. 

3. ordo-jf elsewhere in Pindar means ' sedition ', but here may, as Bury remarks, refer 
to the chorus either in the sense of Knrdorao-is [xnpilw) or of a division ; cf. 1. 5, n. 

5. Bury proposes KaTf[i/aiiTi]nii. 

6. Teiii' must refer to Dionysus, if T<[XeT](ii' is right; cf. int. p. 29. 

7—8. Bury suggests liaXwv 8e] ttXokoi' trfrK^dji/wi' KKTtrivav | dp<j)'t rtuv Kpdracjioi', making 

HfXl(ui the end of a clause and connecting 11. 7-8 with iXSe in 1. 9. A stop may, however, 
have been lost after Kporatpov. The scholium probably refers to the unusual expression 


■jiKoKov <TTi(f>dv(i>v. For Ti\\(KTajv, SC. (TTKJjiU'o)!', cf. EuT. IUppol. 73 7t\(ktov arirftnuoi', vp^ftov (cf. 

iVcw. iv. 1 7) does not suit the vestiges. 

9. Apparently 4>i\i!>t] was altered first to (piXois Stj and then, the correction being crossed 
out, to (^iXai' Si;. The I after (^iX is not crossed out ; but the av above the hne begins close 
to the X and 0iXni' 81; (which makes the line end with two choriambi) is metrically preferable to 
(pOiiav St] or simply (pikiav. Moreover it is not certain that the o of <p6ov was crossed out like 
the (() and r when (\6f was substituted, and in II. 27 there is a similar doubt concerning the 
deletion of a superfluous letter. 

TToXed is corrected from nnXfoy. The mark of quantity is not quite certain, but a alone 
does not account for all the ink. nuXw is clearly meant, but no form woXfa is known, though, 
since wciXi/n occurs in Hesiod, it does not seem impossible. 

TO. Burv proposes ne\dip]wi> . . . npvramv, and would see in this line a reference to the 
Acrocorinthus ; but irpvTnvi . [ may be vocative, as in Fy. ii. 58. 

11. \^n■. the first letter might be X and the second v; the third is more like a with a 
high stop after it than [.\. Bury suggests something like f'noiTo d'] Spa, but the stop is an 
objection to ilpn. 

12. aKnapwrd, 'inflexibly', is a new adverb. uKapmns occurs in Is.Vu. 71 and iUvapTTToi 
in the MSS. of Pj'. iv. 72 (axapTSTOi Hermann). 

13. Tos finSopaTiSas is a gloss on x^PMOf, which was used in the sense of 'spear-shafts' 
also by Stesichorus and Ibycus according to Schol. Find. 01. ix. 128. 

14—15. Bury suggests iiXmr fi' u^ii[fipn]i/T05 avxrjv piotro Trn^fdyvpir | tpKOt t (y)(iopi^a>v ffcXoi, 

' Let the impassable sea-neck protect the festal gathering and be the bulwark of the people,' 

comparing O/. viii. 48 eV 'la-Spa noi/ria and Eur. Jl/ed. 212 itovtov kX^S' anipavTov. avxrjv \vo\x\d 

on this view mean the Isthmus of Corinth. The general sense of 11. 12-15 's, he thinks, 'Put 
aside arms and preparations for war, and trust for defence to the Isthmus.' aixh" elsewhere 
in Pindar means the human neck, but that does not combine easily with pimro. 

17. Perhaps 7roXuyn(9]e'ff. noiSni can, however, be dative. 

18. Bury suggests 2io-iJ<J> mo or rXarxjoio epvXov, referring lo the Corinthians. 

19. For TTfrdXoif T/p^ivots (Bury) cf. Pj'. ix. 46 oiro-a T€ )(6uiv Tjpim (j)vW' dvanepTTfi. The 

first letter of the line might be p. 

22. Bury suggests oriiVioi' ml-ncmv (or in.irov), referring either to the legend of 
Bellerophon and the bridle {(piXTpnv iTTTrftoi/) of Pegasus, a story told by Pindar in an ode 
written for the Corinthian Xenophon (O/. xiii), or perhaps to a particular kind of mouthpiece, 
i.e. one of the imrfia fvria said to have been invented by the Corinthians {(J/, xiii. 20). 

1605. MeNANDER, MI20TMEN02. 

15 X 5-2 cm. Third century. 

This exiguous fragment of a comedy, though containing only the beginnings 
of 37 lines from the top of a column and a few letters from the ends of lines of 
the preceding column, has some interest, since it can with much probability 
be identified. The name of a speaker, rf'(Tas), is inserted in the margin 
against 11. 34-5. and characters of that name are known to have occurred in 
three of Menander's plays, the "llpwi, Mio-ovVei'os-, and Uepu'dla (if Koerte is 
right in assigning 855 to the last-named play), while the apparent mention in 1. 25 
(cf. ]. 29, n.) of 0pu(7cu2't87/?, the name of the leading character in the Mto-oi;Vevos-, 


indicates tlie second of the three. Parts of about 50 lines near the end of that 
play are extant in 1013, and there are 14 other fragments of it known, but 
no correspondence with 1605 is at all hkely, though one or two are just possible ; 
cf. 11. 24-5, nn. Geta was the slave of Thrasonides, but who his interlocutor here 
was is quite obscure. Other known characters in the play are Clinias, Demeas, 
and Cratea. For the plot, which turned upon the redemption of Cratea through 
her father Demeas from servitude with Thrasonides, a rough soldier, see 1013. int. 
and Koerte, Mcnandrca, h". 

The handwriting is a medium-sized sloping uncial resembling 1376 (Part 
xi, Plate iii), and probably of the third century, to which some dated documents 
found together with 1605 belong. The speaker's name is written more cursively 
by a different hand, which does not seem to be appreciably later than that of the 
main text. Paragraph! occur, indicating changes of speaker, but no stops. 

Another papyrus (3rd cent.) containing 23 lines divided between two scenes, 
which has recently been published by Wilamowitz {Sitciingsb. d. Bcrl. Akad. 1918, 
747-9) as part of an uncertain comedy, perhaps by Menander, is probably to 
be assigned to the Mio-ov^ej'oy. In the second scene a woman called Cratea 
unexpectedly recognizes her father, whereupon the owner of the house intervenes, 
and in the margin of 1. 18 re( ) occurs as the name of a speaker. Wilamowitz, 
though noticing the agreement with the Mia-oi;;xfi'oy with regard to Cratea, 
attributes the fragment to a different play, chiefly because Vi{ ) is supposed 
also to occur in the margin of 1. 12 in reference to a character who is addressed in 
the next line as rr\Q'ia. From this he infers that re( ) is an unknown feminine 
name. But it is much more likely that rf( ) in 1. 18 is r«(Tas), and that in 1. 12, 
where the decipherment is admitted to be very uncertain, cither the marginal 
note is to be read differently or some rearrangement of the supposed speakers is 
to be introduced. Geta and Cratea will then be the characters in the Mio-oiJ/xeros, 
the father will be Demeas, and the owner of the house Thrasonides, the action 
being highly appropriate to that play. This explanation is confirmed by the 
striking parallelism between Fr. 11 of the Mio-ov/xei'os, a<j>aveii yeyovacriv al mrdOai. 
and 1. II of the Berlin papyrus, ]fi oIkSitus imdOa'i tQv ynTovcov. 

Col. i. Col. ii. 

OVKfTl [ 
25 6pa(Tu\l'LB 

Ti Tai'a\_ 

KaXcos [ 

9 lines lost ov TTaiS[ 









]r KUKOy 





] naprjv 



a vvv 'ki\y 

€ty Tovp\yov 


vr) Aia 7[ 


aTTO TJ;y . [ 



SiSoacrii/ [ 

ouTcoy a77-[ 


ou/c €^a[ 

TTOjy e£7r[ 

Ta pT]fia[T 

Aeycoi/ t[ 

eXeyej/ a[ 


j/at ^T/o-i [ 


iKirXii . [ 

ayaOa X[ 

[o-a ?]^6t T-_i[ 


[K]a.Xwi . [ 

24. nw«Tt is apparently the first word in the last line of a small detached fragment of 
1013 (1. 26). But an actual coincidence is unlikely. 

25. epa(Toi[i>iS : this might possibly coincide with the corrupt Fr. 14 (Koerte) of 

the Mia-oififvos, which is generally restored iwjovm iiiv | epacra)i(iSi;t'), i mi'-fp, dwiKTayKncn 
6* ov. 

29. fi)XoTU7r[o : cf. Xl(piKei.poiiivr) 408-9 o S' aKiuTTap iyia \ Ka\ Ci^otvttos tlfdpainos. Spoken 

by Polemon, the counterpart of Thrasonides in that play. 

34. Perhaps avaye [cr]e[avrov, as in 2afila 1 45. The y is however very doubtful and 
aiiai(T .] . [ can be read. It is not clear whether r«(Tas) refers to 1. 34 or 10 1. 35. The surface 
of the papyrus between II. 33-4 is rubbed, but there is no trace of a paragraphus, so that if 
re(Tas) refers to 1. 34 there was probabl}- a change of speaker in the middle of that line. 


1606. Lysias, Orations Tipbs 'luTtoOipcri^v, Against Thcomncstus, &c. 

Height 29-5 cm. Late second or early third century. 
Plate II (Fr. 6, Cols. i-ii). 

Ly.sias has hitherto been represented in papyri only by some small third- 
century B.C. pieces of the oration against Theozotides (P. Hibeh 14); but the 
following fragments of several of his lost private speeches are more extensive 
and valuable. Like 1607-8 and 1612, they form part of the first of the three 
large finds of literary papyri in 1905-6, which also produced 841-4, 852-3, 1012, 
1016-17, 1364, and 1376, the publication of this find being now completed. 
The small group consisting of Frs. 8-18 was found separately in a different part 
of the same mound, but no doubt belongs to the same roll. Originally about 
aoo in number, the fragments have been reduced by combinations to 150. Much 
the longest of them is Fr. 6, which contains (i) the last three columns of a speech, 
with the title (11. 237-8) tt/jos- '\TiiioQe.^)<Ti]v v-nip Oepa-naivrf^ followed by a blank 
space, (2) the first two columns of a speech directed against a certain Theomnestus 
b\' an unnamed plaintiff, ■npos 'l-rniodepa-Tiv is known as the title of a speech by 
Lysias (no. Ixi) from Harpocration, who makes two quotations from it, Fr. 123 
(Sauppe) d<^ai'7js ovaia koI (l>avepd and Fr. 133 'lepdvvixos. Fr. 122 seems to be 
connected with Fr. 2 of the papyrus, where ovtr]tW . . . a<f>[avi<T]aL is a probable 
restoration in 11. 29-32, and <^av\ipa is possible in 1. 48 ; but 'Upwwjxos does not 
seem to occur in 1606, though it is tempting to restore his name in 1. 89. The 
title of the second speech would at first sight be expected to be Kara ®]<TTov : 
but two orations of Lysias with that title are extant (x and xi), xi being merely 
an abbreviation of x. Since both of these are quite distinct from the speech 
against Theomnestus in the papyrus and presumably refer to a different person, 
while Harpocration seems to have known of only one speech Kara Oiop-vrjo-rov, 
i.e. the extant oration x (Blass. Attische Bcrcdsanikcit, i. 611), the title of the 
second speech in 1606 is likely to have been something else. Fr. 9, belonging 
to the smaller group, contains parts of the last 16 lines of what is obviously 
a third speech, with part of the title, which seems to be unknown, and a few 
letters from the beginning of what is much more likely to be a fourth speech 
than the oration Trpos 'ImToOiparii', and among the numerous minute scraps from 
the main find are certainly three (Frs. 19, 20, and 22), and perhaps two more 
(Frs. 21 and 44), which contain parts of titles. The minimum number of speeches 
represented by the fragments as a whole is four, a figure which could be obtained 
by assigning Fr. 9. ii to the speech Tipds 'liriroOipa-i-iv, Fr. 19 (Kara ©eo/xm/o-jrou ?) 
or Fr. 22 to the speech against Theomnestus, and Fr. 20 to the title of the third 

1606. LYSIAS 49 

speech, and ignoring Fis. 21 and 44. But at least six of the lost orations are 
much more probably represented, and though all of these may have been quite 
short, it is clear that the fragments are widely scattered over different parts of 
the roll. Lysias is credited by Plutarch {]'ita Lys. 836a) with no fewer than 
425 speeches, of which Dionysius and Caecilius recognized 233 as genuine. The 
names of about 170 are known, and 34 are extant. 

The script is a handsome uncial approximating towards the early biblical 
type, like 1234 (Part X, Plate iv) and 1365 (Part XI, Plate vi), and probably 
belongs to the early part of the third century or even the end of the second. 
Iota adscript was generally written. Paragraphi and two kinds of stops, in the 
high and middle position, are employed ; that Fr. 82, in which a coronis occurs, 
belongs to 1606 is not certain. Fr. 6, in which the upper and lower margins are 
preserved, shows that theie were 46-49 lines in a column. The other fragments 
are or may be from the middles of columns except when it is otherwise stated. 
The lines, which tend to begin and end more to the left as the column proceeds, 
range from 15 to 22 letters, generally having 18 or 19, and the >-shaped sign is 
used for filling up short lines. Deletions are indicated by a line drawn (by the 
first hand) above the letters in question ; but the text has not apparently been 
subjected to any independent revision, and several mistakes are noticeable, 
generally omissions: cf. 11. 47, ii.5, i39, 141, I73. -^h 349-56, S^^^- 

Of the oration tt^jos- 'IttttoScpo-?)!' the three concluding columns (11. 126-238), 
though requiring a good deal of restoration, are fairly well preserved, and some 
intelligible passages are provided by four other fragments (1-2 and 4-5) evidently 
belonging to earlier columns of the same speech (11. 7-19, 28-47, 76-86, 114-24). 
The respective order of these is doubtful, but Fr. 4 may be placed below Fr. 2 
with an interval not exceeding 2 or 3 lines between 11. 48 and 76 ; cf. 11. 38-44, n. 
Frs. 3 and 26 also probably belong to this oration, and perhaps Frs. 28-30, 87, 
and loo-i. It must have been one of Lysias' more important speeches, being 
concerned, like the oration against Eratosthenes (xii), with the administration of 
the Thirty Tyrants and his own grievances. In xii Lysias prosecuted Erato- 
sthenes, who was one of the Thirty, for the murder of his brother Polemarchus 
(cf. 1606. 8-9, 161) ; the present action mainly turned on the question of the 
restoration of Lysias' property on his return from exile. As the title implies, 
the speech was on the side of the defence ; but that the real defendant was not 
the Bfpd-naiva but Lysias himself, is clear not only from the general tenour of the 
fragments, in which Lysias is very prominent, but from the expression (pivyd Tipr 
Uki]v applied to him in 11. 183-4, and the closing appeal in 1. 221 aT!o\j/i](t>iaa(TOai 
Avcriov. How the dfpa-nawa became involved in the case does not appear, but 
presumably she was acting merely as Lysias' agent. With the plaintiff Hippo- 



therses were associated one or more other individuals, the plural being employed 
in reference to the side of the prosecution, which is called uvroi in 11. 32 and 229 
and perhaps ot avTihinoi. in 1. 133. Nicostratus and Xeno'cles] (11. 17-18) may well 
be two of the persons meant, and possibly Sosia[des^ (11. 92-3, n.). The dispute 
was concerned with the ownership of property {ovaia) worth 70 (?) talents, formerly 
belonging to Lysias, which had been seized by the Thirty and apparently sold 
by them to Hippotherses and his associates (11. 28-34), and which Lysias was now 
trying to recover. By the terms of the amnesty arranged at the time of the 
restoration of the democracy in i;. C. 403, sales made during the administration 
of the Thirty remained valid ; but unsold property reverted to its original owners, 
an exception being made in the case of land and houses, i.e. immovable property, 
which were to be returned in any case (11. 38-48). This reference to the amnesty 
is important, confirming Grote's views {Hist, of Greece, viii, ch. 66) on the 
nature of the agreement ; but the precise application of it to the dispute between 
Hippotherses and Lysias is obscured by the incompleteness of Frs. 1-5. Lysias 
evidently regarded the terms of the amnesty as in favour of his contentions, but 
Hippotherses too may have appealed to it, and perhaps the interpretation was 
one of the chief points of dispute. In 11. 13-17 Lysias complains that he was 
being prevented by the prosecution from buying back his own property from 
the purchasers ; but in 11. 76 sqq. he is found objecting to a claim of Hippo- 
therses for half the price of, apparently, the ovala described in 11. 28-34, and in 
11. 114 sqq. he criticizes the legality of the sales effected by the Thirty. This 
evidence is not very easy to combine into a connected argument ; but apparently 
the oio-ta bought from the Thirty by Hippotherses contained land and houses, 
and Hippotherses refused to surrender these without compensation, whereupon 
Lysias, through the Oepanau'a, took some step towards ejecting Hippotherses 
which resulted in the prosecution, possibly in some form of bU>] f^oyAi;?. The 
peroration, to which 11. 127-236 belong, does not throw much light on the 
facts of the case, which are referred to only in general terms (11. 224-36), but 
in itself is of much interest, since it contains an eloquent comparison of Lysias' 
behaviour towards the State with that of his opponent. The patriotism of Lysias, 
who after losing his brother and much property made large sacrifices in support 
of the democrats, is recorded in a passage which was evidently before Plutarch 
when writing his account of this part of Lysias' life (11. 163—71, n.), and is 
contrasted with the pro-Spartan zeal of Hippotherses. The speech must have 
been delivered very soon after the restoration of the democracy, i. e. in 403 or 
402 B.C. 

The second oration, that directed in prosecution of Theomnestus, after a very 
short introduction (11. 239-46), proceeds to the narration of the facts. The 

1606. LYSIAS 


unnamed plaintiff claims to have lent his friend Theomnestus 30 minae in 
order to pay a debt to a certain Theozotides for which judgement had 
been entered against Theomnestus. The transaction took place without 
witnesses, and Theomnestus, having subsequently quarrelled with the plaintiff, 
now denied the loan (11. 246-61). After a mutilated passage apparently 
explaining the nature of the quarrel, which seems to have been connected with 
the guardianship of some propert)-, and the unsuccessful attempts of the plaintiff 
to get his money returned (11. 261-95), a dilemma is propounded for the defence. 
Theomnestus must maintain either that he borrowed the money from some one 
else, or that he did not borrow any money at all, in order to pay Theozotides 
(II. 295-301). Of these alternative lines of defence the first is rebutted in 
11. 301-40, Fr. 7 probably belonging to the column following Fr. 6. v, while the 
second is dealt with in 11. 340-66 by putting a number of questions designed to 
show that Theomnestus would not have run the risks which he actually incurred, 
if he had had the requisite money at hand. The rest of the speech is lost, and 
there are no indications of the date of its delivery. 

The third speech (Frs. 8, 9. i and probably some of Frs. 10-18), apparently 
against a person w^hose name ended in -ylius, seems to have been concerned 
with the sale of a ship at Carthage, and a question of partnership ; but there is 
nothing to show what was the subject of the fourth speech (Fr. 9. ii and probably 
some of Frs. 10-18). With regard to the remaining fragments the more or less 
probable position of Frs. 13, 16, 28, 45, 53, 73, 80, and 128 has been ascertained. 
Fr. 25 apparently comes from a fifth speech about an inheritance (K\fjpo^), and 
Frs. 31 and 39, which probably belong to the same oration, may be connected with 
a reference in Harpocration to /Sf/rJai&Jcretos Si'kj; in two unnamed speeches of Lysias 
(cf. 1. 493, n.), while probably one of Frs. 19-22 belongs to the title of it. Fr. 64 
might come from the speech rrpoi 'AAKi/3td6))i' or that irpus 'Apx€|3td8))r. 

We are indebted to Mr. E. Lobel and Dr. C. 
suggestions in the restoration of this papyrus. 

Hude for several good 

(a) Tipoi liriroOipaiiv. 

Fr. I. 

II letters ]k[. . 

10 „ ]afi[. . 

5 !, a-VK]o(f)au[T . 

8 „ ]yT[.'. . 

7 I- ] OVTOV . [. 

15 S]oVS TOl? iU)l>rjfliv\piS 

[[rja eai/royl] Svfarai K[ofii^i 
a]dai NiKoarpaTOi ya[p Si 
K]a^€Tat fxera 'S.ef0K[\(0V9 ? 
To\v TTCoXrj'aai'TOi 

E 2 




t\^i(pv\yi\v ro[v Si a 

\S€X(p[o]u ayT[o]i) [TloXenapyov 
] aneKTiLvav Kai T-qv [ovctl 
lo a\v acpeiXovro kul [ecoy 

H{\V iV TliipaiU ClOL-)(t[TO T] 

^i]ov KaTeXOcou a7r[o0€ 
p]((T6ai vvvL Se eTTe[iST] rj ? 
K]fi ouSe T-qv Tifiqy [ano 

20 .]i'a acnTi[S 

12 letters 

. .]o TTapa[ 








■]y<f  [ 



25 . .]Sov9 t[ 



.](r6ai. . [ 



.]tTa9 cr[ 



Fr. 3. 
Col. i. 

[•] • [ ^]^^ 

X7](p[0 ova]iai' 

30 Sf e§S[ofiT]Ko]i'Ta ra 
XavTcov [aTTeSo }\vto r]v 
ovToi ovT a^[ai'icr]ai ovt ano 
SocrOai 77oX[X(Bj'] rj/iepcou 
eSvi>a[vTO (]Tre[i\S[r]] t[oi] 

35 vvv fi(6 [i/]/xa)f (p[iv]ya)i> 
AvcTiai [wtxyTo f«' A'frt*] 
Tov vfi[iT]fpov nXrjdovi 
KaTr]X6(i' KeXevovcraii' 
Ttnv avv6r]K(av Ta fay 

40 TTfTrpa/iiya tov9 icoyrj 

jliVOVS fX^"' '''" ^* '^ 
[TTJpara rot;?' ArareA^oi'ras 

[oujr oiKiav KiKtrjIUVO^ 
45 [a] (cat at (rwOrjKai tou Ka 
[rejX^OKcra' aneSiSocTay 
[(a]i> Se 'ay S[e]] anoSoi[(T]i 
[ ]to[. . .]fpa 




Fr. 3. 

50 [ 

TTJoXAcor [ 






]t(b>' IiTnd\6ip(T 


75 ]?-Ta[ 

55 /3o[ 





60 (X6a>[ 


Xcoy a[ 



65 cracray[ 

ws aa7t[iS 




70 t[ 

1606. LYSIAS 


Fr. 4. Col. i. 

[ ] fJ^fja Ta[vTa] toi  

[i'v\i' CO auSpes StKaarai t[o 

[ov TTJapa Av<rLOv Xafieiv Ae 
80 [yctff] ras eavTov avficpo 
\p\a-^ axTUip TOVTOV drjaav 
[p]oi' [eJTTf Tcor TpiaKovra 
\{\vpr]KOTOi aXX ovK anoXco 
[\e]Koros ra ovra Siaya 
85 [i'a.]KTOWTOi S avTov Kai 
[^aAsjiTcoy (pfpouTO? npoi 
[ ]yTiX . . . 

[ ]vfA-] •  « 

[ ]vXov Ayap 

90 [retwy '\T70vcrLV avrco 

[ ] TrapaXa^cov 

[ ] TOf ScocTta 

[Srjv ? ]vetcrTT]i/ rj 

[ ] (yvyKd/jLe 

95 [f ]os copoXo 

[y ]ev Tois av 

Fr. 4. Col. ii. 



100 [. 

• -J 


Col. i. Plate ii. 

K 7o]kj VOflOVi 

aKri\KoaT(. t] 

]ay SiKaiOTe 

pov jiray Xe 



105 yei' . [ 




no ^avTOS [ 

or{.] . [.]r[ 


Fr. 5. 

[ Sewo]y y[a.p 

[af ea; a> avSpis SLK\a(rrat. [ 
115 [ej K\aTr)X6i(Ti) /i[€]i' cay aS{L 

\^K\0VHiV0l TCOf 8e OfTCOU [ 

[a]TrocrTepeicr6e cuy aSiKovi'[ 
[Te]9- KaiTo[i] SiKaicoi av 
[opyi(oi\a6e tois ecovrj/xe 

120 [voi\9 ra vfisTepa ei' rai^ toi 
[afjraiy a-v/icpopan wpco 
[ro]v pet' yap 01 TpiaKovja 
\ov8iv a\v (.naiXow et 01 [eo 
[i'r](Top.]evoL pt] -qaav ([. 

J 25 [ ]r[. .]yKav i[. .]y 

[ ]a)i' 6i'j^ 

Fr. 6. 

Col. ii + Fr. 80. Plate ii. 

168 [HX€i\ov ^[ivoy ovra i 

o.y[T(o]i. ciTfila-fy] avror 8v[ 

170 TaXavTa Tr\ap\aa-)(^iiv T[e 
Xr]i /cat avTL T[d\vTa>i' ovSe 
piav x[°/']."' "'^^^ Scapeaf 



[ytiv ]y ^fXTiovi- 

[ ■'"j?!^[^l afTtSi 

[kovs . . ■](icr[ ] vfiiu 

135 [ ] TOVTOdy innpiTTO 

\jiiv a\KOvaavTas ra Avcri 
[at Kai T\nno6ipcTr}i narpa 
[ynev]a. oTronpav ^ov\icr6{ 
[Kpia-if ?] TTpayiiaros '^r](pi 

140 [aaaOai] nepi tovtcov otto 

[(T€)/)oy /3eA]r«Jt)r (ov nept ttjv 
\r)neTip'\av tioXlv Tvy)(a, 
[viL 8e.o'\pai S vp-wv aKOv 
[uai iva K\ai ovtos vpiv So 

145 [|«y XpjfjcTToy (Lvai npo6v 
[firjrai eJTTi tov Xoinov km 
[jTTTro^epjcrr/y aKovcras Ta 
\TTpo<Tr]K'\qvT avTcoi /SeXri 
[cor 70 \oi]Trov rji ot[i] fi(i> 

150 [off ? . . .la Av(Tt[. . . . v]iiiv 

[ ]67r[. Tra.]vTe 

[Xcoy ? Sr]Xo]u €a)[s'] fJ.[f]i' yap v 
[pfis i]vSa]tpopiiTi ttXov 
[aicoTaTOS r]]i' Tcof fUTOi 

155 [k(i)v fTTeiS]r] Se avp(f)0 
\pa eyet'tTo] (mpive 
\ovSi y\ap iXa\iaTov pi 
[po9 T(ov vpiWipmv SvaTv 
[X(tu^' . . . .]v(T€v auopcos 

160 [vTTO Tail' Tpia\KovTa Kai 
[aS(X(pov Kai] ■)(^prjpaTU)v 
\woXXwv aTTia\Tiprj fi\i\yo^s] 

\iTtil Se <Ptv]yCOV CCl^fTO 

[eiriKovpovs] rpiaKoai 
165 [oiiy iTTip-<^iv ?] eiy ttjv Ka 

Trap vpiv KiKopicnaL Kai 

(piVycOlf piV TOlOVTOi r)V 

175 KajiXQcov Si ovSiva ttco 
[77]or€ A6r]vaiwv iXvnr] 
[creji' ovTi mpi tcou avrov 
a[j']a/ii'jj/i<crK(B»' (vtp 
y[icri]coi' ovTi Wipi Tcov aX 

180 X[o'hpi(i>v oviiSi(<i>v apap 
[TrflpaTcof vvv S avay 
KTji mpi avTov Xeyiiy v 
no ToiovTov yap (pivyn ttjv 

SlK[r]]u 0? iTTl piV TCOV Ti 

185 Tpa\K0^crlu>v cpivywv <b'X^ 

TO iK AiKiXiiai Si OppO) 
piVOS p[i^Ta TCOV TToXi 

puov i\Tn Tri\v iraTpiSa 

iC7TpaTiv\aiV 01 S^i TT]^ 770 

190 Xeco[y ivdpoi Karriyal 

yov ay[Tov Kai]\ n[oXi\TT]v 
vpe\Tfpov eiT\oLrja-av 
(0(tt\ oipai Tra<T\i StjXov 
eii'a[(] ot[i] p[iio]\v vvvl 

195 (Ppovii TCOV -[[ei^cov cciKO 
Soprjpivcov [7] TCOV 
TOTi Ka6r}ipr]fj.ivci)V [ 
ovS op[o]ias iXniSas e 
\ii 67r[i 7a]iy vpiTfpai? 

200 iVTvx[iaiv\ Kai avptpopais 
iiTu T[iX(oi ?] coi/ [7r]oA/T»;y 
[[/caij] ovS[incoTr]oTi avTcoi 
piTapiXT][cTa]v o[vSi Si 
a TTjv TjXiKi[a]v /3[eAT£ 

205 cov yeyiVT]piv[oi crvKO 
(pavTii Tovi 7roXA[oi'y pi 


[6oSov Kai TTJapea^exo 
[Xp-qfiara. re S]pax/^as 
1 lines lost 

Fr. 6 
A\y<na.v Se ^a/jti'] rrapa[ 
Toy [St]/jLov aTro\afj.]^ai'[(ii' <^eir) 
epy[fatap] j-qv fnyi 
ctt[t]u ■JTfTror]]KOTa Seo 

2 20 fia[i Of]!/ v/zcor O) auSpts 
SiKacrraL anoyjfTjcpicracrOaL 
Avcrtov fiijivriiiivov^ 
Kai t[o\vtov K[ai\ rcav aWcov 
Twv €i[p]77/i€ra)i' ei Sf 

225 fji[rf\ Ti? ecrrai tovtov av6pa> 


[fi€v] avToi ^lat XTj^j/ofTai 


a Vfia^ (ipya[cr]a[TO . . . 

Kai Tay[. . .]v[ 


210 apicTTa [ 

pov Avcn[ 

Kai Tnv[T 

Tcmi' aTT[ 

jJ-iVOS . [ 

215 [. .]v a\\[ 

Col. iii. 

7[a] 8 Vfifti Scoa-€T€ 77 T19 

T0[v]Ta>P iv8ailX0Vi<TT€ 
230 [pOS] ft /XT] fJLOVOV [[TTfjOi]] TOOV 

[rorje npaxdifTcoi' avy 
\yva)\fxrjv avTois e^ere 
[aXAa] Kai win ufpi cof 
[av ei]y v/ias fiaiwaif 
235 [ca] av KfXevcoaii/ y^rqcpi 

77/30? InnoOepcTTji' 
VTTfp OfpairaivTjs 


(d) Agaittsi Tlicomncstus. 



Fr. 6. Col. iv. 

\<^aC\yiTai \8i\.a to[u1 . . [.] 

. . -^TOV @i.0y.V7](TT0% 

TTpos ?] v/xos \a-x\i8ov Ttav 
. .^vai ovTCo yap Sn 

6r]K€ ?V (UCTTe fXTTj fj.0 

vof (Tr]iTpoTrovs avai k€ 
. . . a]Wa K[a]i ttjv ovaiav 
oj/jrt 8 (Taipwi 

Fr. 6. Col. V. 


TT]]/ avayK-qv [ 

treco? ov8 avToi ay[. 
295 T(L avayKq 8 avljwi 



[©€0]/^«'[?J(T]TC0t TpiaKOV 

\r'\a fivas tScDKa SiK-qv 
Sfov €KTCcra[i 0]eoSoTLSrii 

250 TTptv Svi'at Tov TjXiov ei 
8i (iTi vnepriiifpov aval 
Sovs Si coantp (tKo[s] ap[e]v 
[lapTvpciov ano(Tr[i\poi\p\e. 
fos avayKa^ojiai SiKa 

255 (eaOai @iop.vri<TTOi Se 

TTpo TOV p.iv r]i> p.01 (pLXos 
Kai eraipoi vvvi Se iru 

adfl9 VTTO T(OV e/XCOU i)(6pU)V 

ravra re irpaTTH kul a\ 
260 Xo oTiovf av eis e/^e [e]ToXpT^ 
aei'- Trpif S[i TavTTjy -q 
{lJ-i\v 7rjV SyiacpopYt-v yece 
a-5[a]t oire rj\i>u>-^\ri\<Ta ovn 
aTT-qiT-qcra \to apy\vpiov ov 

265 Sf . [ n]o\vi e|o 

[ ]v Se ecopcof 

. [ ent\TpOTTr]i' 

ova[ias avTco Kaj-eaKfva 
(r/if[i'T]f ....]. j'70 pe 

270 iKX[ ]v Tql TTj^ a 

tt[ ]re ore e5a> 

K [avTco avev p.'\apTvpwv- 
Sovi [Se Kai ttju] awaiTi] 

CIV [ ]y tvavTi 

275 ov f[. . . iroio}\yp.evoi 
r]yr][aapr]v Trep]iepyov 

eLva[i ] fiovov 

a.[ ]Tepmi' 

^[ ] • »' 

280 eia-[ ] . c 

ei pi) nap epov t[o apyv 
piov eyei Svoiv 6aT[epov 
1] Trap erepoy <pa[&\K[eiv ei 
X-qcpevai r] avT[ov to nav ? 
300 eKT€TiKevai Ta)[i QeoSo 
TiSrji ei p[e]v to[iwv 
Tra[p] eTepov (p-rjcret [eiX-q 
[(pevat] Kan[ 

305 [ 
L ] • "-ji- 

310 [ ]".4- 

[ ]v pt] aTro[. 

[ ]( TOKOV a . [ 

[ ] vcp eTepa>\y 

t[ \va TOKOV [. 

3'5 [ ] '^«/' eM9[i^? 

e . [ ]<Tev TOV ayvL[So ? 

To[y . .] . Tr}v anopiav o[ 
Kv[eiv] SetjOrjvai- ^[apa 

Se TQ)V pT]VV<TOVT(o[v 

320 Tois eX[^]p[o]i-^ a^[i]ovv Sa.[ 
vet^[e](j6ai- Ka[i\Toi 7r[a)y 
eiKOS Ta pev epa e[Te 
pois (rvveKSi.S[oa6ai av 
T(oi Se nap eTepcav S\a 

325 vei^ea6[ai.'\ coy 5 ou . [. . 
Tos ri^[i(o'\<r[e\v avTtui /x[. . 
oi'TO? nap eTepov Sav[eL 
^ea-6ai peya vp[i\v Tf[ 
Kp-qpiov ep-ji o[re'\ yap [e 

1606. LYSIAS 


jj[ ]^<^H ] 

(7![ ] OfJ/ Tl € 

iii t]o apyvpi 

Of [ ] . €iJ ((TTl[ ] 

285 /* . [ ]. ii av 

t[ T]oy irpa 

■y[/iaTos ] TToiTj 

33° X°[p]'?y*' av[8pa.]<n [eis Al 

ovvcTLa 7ra[ \i 

X[t]ay Bpa)([nas yiti ? 

crOov SuXvycn 

Frs. 7 + 

333a [-I^o.^ 

334 ir^pt Ti- •]?'^[-]'^ • • [ 

335 p.ov o\KViLv Ser][6r]i'aL ? . . 

re Se I nepi tov ^ooi 7r[ 

[ejjT flflOl OLKStdll 0J'T[£ .... 

[.]ai I TTpoy /zer oyr t[o nap e 

[rjeploji/ (ftaaKHv H[\r](pe 
340 [I'aji ravTa Xeyco ay \Sf . . 

[. . .] .'opTOS apyvp[Lov . . 

[. . ujyixas TOV @io[iJii'rjaTOv } 

\(VT\€vdiv xpT] [e^eTa^etf ? 

[n(o]i eiKOi fcrrtv t][ 

345 [. .]y apyvpiov ■n-(\p]u8[iiv\ e 

\a.v\Tov €<y rov fO'xa[''"oi'] /cii' 

S'\v\vou eXQovTa Ka[t To\(Tav 

rrjv [5]i/j/a//ij' €nL[S]u^ai 

Tois e\6poi9 Kai. (rti) ovt[q)] a<f>o 

45 + 73- 

350 Bpa €7r[€]rp€Tr€ Ttfji T\v)(ri\i. 
ei [K]ai t[4] €^ai^vr}^ [eJTra 
^€1' TTfpL TO a-(ojj.a afia 
Kai TOV ^Lov avay[Ka(T&\ri 
uai TTadeif eiy tovt[o Trp]o 

355 [T1Ko]vTa (oaTe €i eSv [o] -qXi 
[oy] vnep-qpepov oi'r[oy /cjat 
[Tt]y ovTMi avorjTOi 0(J-t[i]s 
[aulrof napaaKeva^ei [v 
[no] TOis €)([6]pois yef€a-6ai 

360 [i] t]is ovtq)S a<ppcoi' ocTTty 

[ ]ei oXiyoi; Sdu a 

[ Vat Tj TIS V 

[ ] ocrriy A[. .] . u 

.[ ]a.'/^fi- • • • 

365 [ ]y ^io'i. . . . 



(c) Against . . . ylius, &c. 

Fr. 8. 
[na^Xiv T^o^ivvv [cb] avSpei 
[8iK]a(TTai cci Trj[i'] vavv 
370 \ev K]apyr]SovL an'[i\SoTo 


Fr. 9. Col. 

\ VfJCtlV . 


375 [o-' ] _ 

[ ] fiapTvpes 

Fr. 9. Col. ii. 

39° [ 




YliOL\pTvpri(7ovcrLV \y'\n 

ir o[£ 

[(US /i€]l' TOll'Vl 

' CD avSpes 


f€7ril7rX60J'T€[9 . ... 

[8lKa(r]Tai ovk (yivofirjy 
[aurjcoj K[6\ivwvoi aK\ov 

395 ^'4 
/ca . [ 

|^«ik'iip«m^\.'«'f%.j * •   9 

Fr. 10. 


D [crare] tcoi' fiaprvpcov Kai 


\ 1 . 



L J • 

[v ]v 

] . € Kai [.lo-[ 

[. . . T\avTa roLvvv m ay 

400 [ 

]e:y /^e»'T[ 

[5/3ey 8iKa(TT\ai. 



] Trap iTipaSyV ? 

385 [1-" ]^ • 



]ay Si \u[ 

\ \a..a8 

. [. . . 



] 5jaXAa[ 

[. . . Tr]v\ vavv 


' >  [ 

[. . . . ■v//-??]0£O-a[o-]^e 
[ ■apo's ] . vAiot" 

Fr. II. 

Fr. 12. 

' Fi 

• 13- 

[ ] • T[ 

]Xoi; . [. . 


of col. 

[. . . .]r[.]XX[ 


] • '^41  [• • 


] //a/3Ti^p[ 

[ ] • [ 

] . ov ovTa\ 



oi'ra[.] . 5(/ca_([ 
[.]€i^' 8r) TiCiV a[ 


] aSiKws a 


Fr. 14. 

[.]ol'[.]a^'Ta ap . [. . . 01; 430 

]y oioy ov 


[• • •]'?[ 

TO) (TcpoSpa fioy [KaTf. 



440 ^y iTi) irpocrl €0a? 


(f)pOVT}(TeV [co]o-7[€ . . 



. . (ToXfia 


fiovXicrOai a[ 

(r^a[t] ai'r[ 



/^e •lT0ir)(Ta(T6[ai 

[. .]C0 ^€(1'0t[ 


Toy[. . . 


d of col. 

[• • All •].-[ 


]y«[- • • 

Fr. 15. 

Fr. 16. 

Fr. 17. 

Fr. 18. 

[• •]?Wl[ 447 


450 ] • f • 

[ 453 




l/'*." • [ 



• • • f^[ 






1606. LYSIJS 
(d) Miscellaneous. 


Fr. 19 

^r. 20. 

Fr. 21. 

Fr. 22. 

456 ]tov 457 

Trpoy [ 

458 ] napay[onmv ? 

459 an€i[ 

460 77/309 [0 ?] . [ 

Fr. 23. 

Fr. 24 

Fr. 25. 

] • [■]^0T[ 

. .'\tlov[ 


]ov Kai [ 

. Tr]apaX[ 


]5a)Ta)f [ 



. .1 7rXeio[ 

1x7)1' (Tu/^/3a[X 


.] Si TOOf . [ 

] /xj; 70U /cX7;[poi' 

465 ]r]Tf Ka.[ 

] . ai ina-T[(is ? 

] XPW^^M" 

] <pa(TKo[v 


] eif rai'T7)[«' 


.]pas €Sco[k 


jlJZ/ iKTtfflV cr(OT[ 


T]a)(a ovv [ 
i\KacTTa)v [ 

TOJi/ KX-qpof aTr[ 
]ai T-qv TraiSicrK[T]v 

.Ij/ Tty 7ra/3[ 


] ovv ((prj l3ePa[i 

p]Tvpai 6 . 


]7V[-] ^ " " M 

.l&Kco /ca[ 


]d[a.]i f/ioi SiKa[ 


,]f eiyai k[ 

.]lOV OTl t[ 

av\ayKr] r . [ 

]t[.] aKov[cT]ai i€ . [ 
] Kai . . [.]t/T[ 


]r]p(i' Ka\oy[ixi 


]tiu tl t[ 

end of col. 



Fr. 26. 

Fr. 27. 

Fr. 28. 

F. . .1 ov< a[. . . . 


Tai v\_ 

520 . [ 



[. . . . TrloXe/iioiiy 

av[T . 


TOS t[ 


[. .] , [.] . OVK av 





505 [. .\aKOVTOi TOIOVTCM S[ 




[Tpo]Tr(ui rjyi](Ta[To] S[t 

povs . [ 

525 /3[ 

[Ka]ia>? ayai'a[KTeLi' 

61/ Tr][ 


em Toop iraT[pia>y 





(TTepov/MfPOS [ |a[ 

510 fjoi SoKovcriv o\i Ta vfie ri[ 

Tfpa vpiafiiv\oL 

Frs. 29+30 + 28? . Fr. 31. 

530 ^v'l ] . (r[. . . ]'»»'?[• 

^|[ ]f/30'y f 540 ]v9<''''f[' 

TT . |[ ]ai avTov na ]rpoy tov[ 

pa\[ ]w awoSei ] Kai roty <f)0 

^a\[. .]oi . I [. . a]vTOi/ efayl ]ai ayaua 

535 Ti\a TOis aX.[\oii\ y[i]yv(oa-Koi' kt iT]oX\a rjp-ap 

Ta novov (a ?) a|[f a\vT<o SiKai 545 r ]ot firjSev 

[(o]i nap vficof 0|[e]poj to[.] . j/ Jcoj' (ppofTi 

[. . . .Jf fftoy ya/) | 8vi'a[T]aL an<pi\<T^i]Tii rail [ 

end of col. If • '^ • [ 

Fr. 32. Fr. 33. Fr. 34. 

[.]<f>r]T[ ] . €«/oy [ 565 ] • 

550 [.]^ej'7o[ ]tov ovTOi Se r[ ]ra 

[.]rr[.] . [ S]tayofi€i'os [ ]ap 

[o]vK e6eX[. .] . [ 560 Sia]\eXvKe Triy [ ]^at 

«^€7€ Of yap 8[i\Ka[ioi' ? ji/ (f)acrK(x>v [ ]pa 

/!X6i/ i'/i[£]i' «[<]o"€«' . [. . . ]a«oy tifttt TQ)j' [ 570 If 

555 ''"■ep t[o]i'7ol' [.]»/[ jc 7r/)[o]y [r]ay ei/ia)[ jcra 

[.].[   ■]...[ ]ra 

Fr. 35- 

Fr. 35. 

Fr. 37. 

Fr. 38. 

[. .] . ^ea,[ 







]i' Kai 


]'" yap [ 

575 (cai €re[ 




awe . [ 





TOir . [ Tf 














1606. LYSL4S 

Fr. 39. 


. 40. 


Col. i. 

Col. ii. 

^](^atoi 7r[ 

2 lines lost 


o]vK aTr[ 

] • 




610 ]v 


605 ] anoal 

] . ov 


lines lost 




Fr. 41. Fr. 42. Fr. 43. Fr. 44. 













• 1 


625 ]7rpoo-[ 




]«"■« • [ 

]^^P • [ 


645 ] [ 







]■ [ 

Fr, 45- 

Fr. 46. 

Fr. 47- 

Fr. 48. 






] T^fP' ?[ 

2 lines lost 



650 ]fiOV o[ 


] 7°^^ 



Jra iniTT]Si[ia ? 


670 JTyx'o 


]i; &)? a^ioj' e[ 

665 V 




]rii (plcolfTjaail 



Fr. 4y. Fr. 50. Fr. 51. Fr. 52. 

]pov ]i (ia-t[ ] Kai ([ ].[ 

] . e ] . ecTTjil ]y av . [ ] . v \a . A[ 

675 }pfii> 680 yocTTO . [ 685 o/io]Xoyovi'[ 690 ] . (til -cot nepixjil 

]i Tvyxlau ]iv TO a[ ]fjL€uov S[,]v^ . [ 


]" ]oin{ ]o-€ff[ ]i'tt[ 



Fr. 53. 

Fr. 54. 

Fr. 55- 

Fr. 56. 

695 ]aQ'nK[ 



] p.apTva[i ? 



]  iH 

] fKiiVTji . . [ 

5 ]yop aWa i>[ 
end of col. 

706 ]/^[ 

Fr. 57- 

Fr. 58. 

Fr. 59. 

Fr. 60. 

'\iniV . [ 

710 ]a[ 




5 ItM 
](77? 7ricr[ 


] • •r".K 

Fr. 61. 

Fr. 62. 

Fr. 63. 

Fr. 64. 

]r . . TaX[ 
725 7rXo]i;(na)Ta[T 


27 jar a; 

]»' a/* 
end of col. 


jiTor e[ 

]a£ TOV . [ 




]i aj'aio-xi"'[Toy 

Fr. 65. 

Fr. 66. 

Fr. 67. 

Fr. 68. 

740 ]. t[ 





top of col. 
] . eXX[ 

K x[ 



]oi; a[ 


Fr. 69. 

Fr. 70. 

Fr. 71. 

Fr. 72. 

"Y'TOV [ 

760 ]a7r[ 



TTjV [ 



5 ]••[ 




1606. LYSIAS 


Fr. 73. 

Fr. 74. 

Fr. 75- 

Fr. 76. 


[.]..[ 78. 

So ?](riaSr][ 

785 ] dfo 



]   s^^vi 


775 M 


]nr]i' . 







Fr. 77. 

Fr. 78. 

Fr. 79. 

Fr. 80. 

TT]y [ 

a-dai- Kai e . [ 


801 ]tt[. .] TJJf 

790 ovS[ 

[. . .]/zeror [ 

].. i- 




[...]..■ 6^[ 


]l SrjXoy 



800 JTrai 

]v VVVl 

Fr. 81. 

Fr. 82. 

Fr. 83. 

Fr. 84. 

805 ] . . [ 










[.}vpa . [ 


to ]Te 

820 [.].[ 

Fr. 85. 

Fr. 86. 

Fr. 87. 

Fr. 88. 

821 iSoi; t[ 


top of col. 

831 [.]y.[ 




] f^'^p-rb'p 




]ai av[ 


end of col. 

li<Tea.[ 8; 



Fr. 89. 

Fr. 90. 

Fr. 91. 

Fr. 92. 

835 OTT.[ 


841 £01' T0[ 




nay t[ 

845 recr[ 

01 7rAc[ 


]VTC01 [.]...[ 

Krjy . [ 


end of col. 

Fr. 93- 

Fr. 94. 

Fr. 95- 

Fr. 96. 

847 ]..[ 

850 /ia]pTvpcoi' [ 

852 a[ 

855 ]•?.'?•[ 

] Se TovTQiL ne 


TT]]^ TTpa^lU 

[ _^[ 



end of col. 









Fr. 99. 

Fr. IOC 

top of col. 

858 ] TTOTt 

(0 ap8p](S SiK 

top of col. 

ine[ 860 ]tu) . [ 
a[(TTai ]'^F^[ 

SC2 a[ 

865 ]aioA[ 


Fr. loi. 

Fr. 102. 

Fr. 103. 

Fr. 104 

868 ],[ 
blank space 

870 Ijjy opyi]S aya[ 
]as 8iKa{uy [ 

]cel TTf}[ 


875 ]§[ 


]croi' ni[ 

Fr. 105. 

Fr. 106. 

Fr. 107. 

Fr. 108. 

8S0 ]iSo[ 


882 [.]\oy[ 

885 ] . [ 
l]<txv . [ 



]avTa . [ 

Fr. 109. 

Fr. 1 10. 

Fr. III. 

Fr. 112. 

891 ]a[ 



895 ]Sr . [ 


900 ]pa 


Fr. 113. 

Fr. 114. 

Fr. 115. 

Fr. 116. 


906 ]fltr[ 

908 ]tK[ 

top of col 


]t(di S[ 


9 1 T0[ 

905 ]S..[ 

end of col. 

end of col. 


Fr. 117. 

Fr. 118. 

Fr. 119. 

Fr. 120. 

912 ]a)i 7r[ 



]ti aKTl[ 

918 ]VT0V 


915 ]v V 

]e aTTaTrj[ 


Fr. 121. 

Fr. 122. 

Fr. 123. 

Fr. 124. 

920 ]ev[ 

922 ] . [ 

]tov k[ 

926 ]««' 


]v vixi[v 


](ci a[ 


1606. LYSIAS 


Fr. 125. 

Vr. 126. 

Fr. 127. 

Fr. 128. 

928 ]8lK0o[ 

930 ]aTp[aT 

932 !«.'?[ 


]i Tpia[ 



935 a]_i/op[€y 

Fr. 129. 

Fr. 130. 

Fr. 131. 

Fr. 132. 

936 ]0/3 . 

938 ]y fxri[ 

940 Im/c . [ 

942 ] . . [ 

]ep Sat 



>oy [ 

I^'i- T^33- 

Fr. 134. 

Fr. 135. 

Fr. 136. 

]fiii>o^ y[ 

946 1 €/xav[T 

948 >/i[ 

950 > • • [ 

945 ]Se Kat [ 

rre ?^/pi6(7r7?[ 


y aTro[ 

Fr. 137. 

Fr. 138. 

Fr. 139. 

Fr. 140. 

952 €»'[ 


956 a[ 

958 t[ 

air . [ 

955 0-^4' 



Fr. 141. 

Fr. 143. 

Fr. 143. 

Fr. 144. 

960 ]to a[ 

962 ]rai a[ 


966 ]a . [ 



965 ]4 

]? yv[ 

Fr. 145. 

Fr. 14S. 

Fr. 147. 

Fr. 148. 

968 ]eat[ 

970 ■;.€.[ 

972 ]a . [ 





975 >.'?■[ 

Fr. 149. 

Fr. 150. 

Fr. 1,51. 

Fr. 152. 

976 ]v 

top of col. 

980 ] . . [ 

982 ]i 7]Sr) [ 


979 a\X[ 



Fr. 153. 

Fr. 154. 

Fr. 155. 

983 ]roX[ 

984 ]aT[ 

985 ]«."[ 

Fr. 1. . . . oiiTns . , . yj^((f)v\y€ Uf To\y Be d\8€\(j) 6 v aur[o]0 [noX€/ia^;^oi/, dircKTtivav koi ttjv 


?7*c ?]€i ovhi Tt)i' TifiT)p Umoojovs Tols ('oji'T^/jeVfus" [rja €avTov dvifaTai Kofii^ecrldai. SiKocrrpaTOi ya\P 
biKp^erai ^tni a€Vok\\€ovs toJO TTGjXrjlaaitTos . . . 

' Lysias . . . escaped by flight, but ihey killed his brother Polemarchus and took away 
his property. While he was away at the Piraeus, he claimed to get it back on his return ; 
but now when he has come back, he is unable to recover what is his own, even by paying 
the price to the purchasers. For Nicostratus is prosecuting him with Xenocles, who offered 
/or sale . . / 

~Pt- 2. ... a"lfXA?;(^[^ oiVjiVit' ^€ €(3oiofj.T]Ko]vTa ToXdi'TOitf [dnedo .'jtro, tjv ovtol ovt* af^favin-jat 

^VT drro^ioa'dui TToAfXcoi'] T}fj.€po}if edvpayvTo. e;7rfuj6[)7] tuhJi'M' pcd* liAuojv <^[fi'ly&»' Avtrias [w;^]ero kol 
afieilal Tov vpLurlepov ttXtjOovs KaTrjXOeVy KeXeuoi'fjaJj/ roiu <rvv6T}K0)u ru fxeu TreTrpaficva tovs eoyvrjpivovs 
<)(€iv^ TU 6« n|7rjparn Toi'S KareXSnvTas [KJo/ii'^eo-^ni, ovtos ovtc yi]v \o\j\t oiKLav KfKTT]p(i/os, [a] Km at 

*. . . and sold the property for 70 talents, which property they were unable either to 
Tealize or to sell within a long period. So when Lysias departed with you into exile 
and returned with your democracy, the treaty enjoining that buyers should keep their 
purchases, but the returned exiles should recover what was unsold, he, not having obtained 
either land or house, which even the treaty restored to the returned exiles, or if it 
did (not ?) restore . . .' 

Pr. 4. pfTci rn[i"Ta] Totlfuji/, w t'ivdpes StKaorat, t[o TJp^L(rv ttJs Tip^s T}^t\ov 7r]a/ja At'crtoi; Xa&eii/, 
XeTywj'l Tcis iavTov (jvp.(pn\^p^ds, wcrnep tovtov ^//(Tat[pj6(/ [f'jTrt to)V TpidKom-a [flt'pr^Korof dW ovk 
a7roX&)[Xf JKOTOS ra ovra. biayolvalKTovVTOs S* avTov koi \\a\e\rroiS <p€povTOi npos , . . 

' Afterwards then, gentlemen of the jury, he claimed to receive half the price from 
Lysias, recounting his own misfortunes, as if Lysias had discovered a treasure in the time of 
the Thirty and not lost his property. Lysias being indignant and unwilling to submit 

Fr, 5. dfiPoji> y\ap ai> e'l'r/ w avSpfs biK^aoTal, [et KJari^X^e^rey /jfcli' ws (i^[i/cjou^ej/oi, TOiV Se ovTcov 
[aJTroo-Tepeio-^e cos aSiKoCr[TcJff. Kairo[i] diKaicos hv [o^ytfot](r^e rois ea)i'7p«'[i'oi]? to. vpercpa iv Tois 
Toi\av\Tais (Tvp.(f)opals. TTpwyro^v ^eV yap ol TptaKOvWa ovdeu alf eirdiXovp et ol \diVJ](r6p\(V0L pi] 

'It would be monstrous, gentlemen of the jury, that you should come back from exile 
as the injured parties, and yet be deprived of your property as if you were the wrongdoers. 
You might, however, justly be angry with the purchasers of 3'our property in times of such 
misfortunes ; for in the first place ttie Thirty would not have been offering anything for sale 
unless there had been intending buyers.' 

Fr. 6. i— iii. vplv \8i Trepl?] rovroiv e7nTpe7ro\p€v alKovaaiTas to Av(Ti\n koi 'llTTTro^eprrr/ TTenpa- 
\ypiv\(i oTTOTepav (BovX^aSe yKpltxiv ?1 ( ?^ TfpdypaTos '^rj(pi\ira(TSai\ n€p\ tovtoju onoUrejpfti /ifX Iri'toi' o)v 
7T€p\ rfjif U)p€T€ppi' TToXiu Tvy\d\^i'€i. SfoVat 6' i'pcov dKoi\(TiUj ivii Kjai uvTos vplv 5d[^«i- X/-']'/*'"'""^ flvai 
•npoOvYn^rai e\n\ tov Xunxov^ ku\ 6 rlTTTro^epJo-?;? aKuvdas rd [7r/>oui7KJorT' avruit ^fXrlutiV to \oi\ndv //. 

6V[t] p€u \ovv} . . . .Jti Av(rt[. . . , I'Juii' [ ]^^[* 7ra]i're[Xa)s .^ 6^Xo]i^. ea)[s-] f^[c]i' yap v^pus 

riv8a\pov€iT( 7TXoi>^(nu)TaT<)\' f)li' rtoi' p^TuilKoiu^ cTrftSlf) 6e (ri;^<^orpa eytVerol eVf'ftfi'ei', [ovdi y]dp 

€Xd)(l(TTOV ptlpOi TOiV Vpfy€pOiV hviTT\.\\lQ3V . . . .Ifatl', du6pO>^ \v7r6 TUtV TpUUKOVTa Ka\ [aSfXt^ou Kai\ 

XP»?fiUTa)i' LTToXXcoi' a7rfcr]rc/)r;/u[e']fo[?* cVci fit (/jfiMyo)!' w_:^€ro, \€T7i.Kovpuvs\ TpiaKoaiUw^ tir^p'^ev^^ds ri]V 
Kd\6ohov Ka\ TTJa/jeVxcro [;^pf';/iara re o^paxpds \Pi.(T\iXias Kiu d(T7ridas 8uiKO(Ttas • . . 0/>ao"i'fi«tnv tov 
'HXctjoi' ^U'^o]'' ovTa enifro)] eVrfiffffy] avTov dvo rdXaiTU iT\ap]aa)(€iv tUIXt?, Kal dz/rt Tiolurwi/ 
ovdetxiav x^dpjLP ovBe d<opedv ivap vpiui^v KsKopiaTai. Kal (j)fvyo}v pev rotoCro? rju, KUT€\do)V Be ovBiva 
7ra)[7rloTe * AOrjvaioJV AuTrr/fcrflf, ovt€ 7r€p\ tcov avrov d\v\apipvf}(TK(oi' evepyleaiViiv ourc nepl tkov 
/(XX[o]rp('coi' vveihl^wv dpap\Ty]\^dr(fiV. vvv d* di'dyKJ) 7T(p\ avTtw Xt'-yfir, vnd toiovtov yap (jifvyti Tf)i' 

1606. LYSIAS 67 

6iK\Tj\v' 09 fn\ fiiv T(ov rfTpa\Ko\(TL(iiif Kfifvywv w;^ero, fV AfKfXeins Se op^w^fifos ^[fjra tcov TrnXefiioiv €7t[i 
r^]y TCaTpiba eaTpa^Tfva-fVj ol Sjc t^? 7ruXfa>[s ixOpin Knrr;y(i jyoi' ni'[Toi' Knij 7r[oX(]r;;i^ vp.tT(pov fnnirja-av. 
(t)(TT , oifiai^ TTaai S^Xoi/ ftrnM OT^tl /i[eIoli/ vvv\ K^pavfl ruiif 7\fij(<^v oiKn\dnfiTjp.(i'(iiV [^ toii/j tots 
KaOrjprjfsfvwv^ ol'5' ofxl olt'a? f XTTt'Sa? ex^' ^'^[* '"'^J^^ v/icr/patff fiTi'^^inis] Kai trvpcjuipms, flra T^Xfos ?J 
ii* [ttIoXiVt;?, oi'6t[7r(tj7rlor€ avTut p.eTnpeKrj\fra\i' olybe 8t]a tjjv ^XtKifali' /j[fXTi]a)X' y(y€i>i]p€v\oSy 
{TVKo\(f>avrfl Toi'9 77oXX[oi'ff pf\B^ o vpai (ipyu\(T\n\To . . , ^{vfriav 5^ ;^apii'j irnpa tov I'Sijp.nv drroXap]- 
^dv\fiv\ (€in€py\(aiaiA rijv ^fyifTTirji* ■n'(TToiTj]K6Ta. Penpal t ovji/ vpa>v, to nv^pes diKuo'Tai, dtTo\^rj(^l(Ta<yQfiL 
Av(Tiov pepvT]p(vovs kih t| olurou ki at] toiv t'iWojv Tuiv f0^py)ptvu>v. (I Se ^i['i j, tiV fCTTcu tovtov tifSpojirwu 
SvoTt'ye'fTrfpoff, ft rii l^€fl ni'roi /5ia Xr}i|/'oi'Tnt, Tia] S I'^ft? Sajtrerf J ^ Tts Tolujrtoi' fL'f^at^oi'c'cri'flpof J, et 
;ji7 povov Twv WdryE npaj^BeiTOiv iTvy\yvoi\^rjv avTois e'^cTe, faXXaj Kat I'vi'l Trept ^i' [nv fi]? v/ja? eidioxTiif 
o[<ra] (Ik (teXf uoxrii' \l>rj<pif'ta-Be ' 

npos ^Inirodfpaijv vTTfp Q^pmTaivr)^. 

'. . . we leave it to you, after hearing the actions of Lysias and Hippotherses, to 
give whichever verdict on the matter you choose with regard to the question which of the 
two is the better citizen. And I beg you to listen, in order that both Lysias, having been 
judged by you to have done his duty, may be still more zealous in the future, and 
Hippotherses hearing the truth about himself may behave better. . . . For while you were 
prosperous Lysias was the richest of the metoeci ; but when disaster came he stayed on ; for he 
did not in the least fail to share in your misfortunes, being illegally deprived by the Thirty of 
both his brother and much money. When he left Athens in flight, he sent 300 mercenaries to 
help in the restoration and provided both 2,000 drachmae in money and 200 shields . . . (and 
going to) Thrasydaeus the Elean, who was his guest-friend, he persuaded him to provide 
two talents in ta.xes, though in return for this he has never obtained any recompense or 
favour froin you. Such was his behaviour in exile, while since his return he has never 
given offence to a single Athenian either by recalling the benefits conferred by himself or by 
making reproaches for the sins of others. But now it is necessary to speak about him, since 
his accuser is a man of this character : in the time of the Four Hundred he took to flight, 
and making Decelea his head-quarters fought with the enemy against his country ; and it 
was the foes of the city who restored him and made him your fellow-citizen. Hence it is, 
1 think, plain to all that he is now less pleased with the walls which were built than with the 
walls which were then destroyed, and bases quite dissimilar hopes upon your good fortunes 
and your disasters, and then being a full citizen, and never having repented or improved 
through age, he slanders the democracy after what he has done against you . . . (it is just) that 
Lysias should receive the thanks of the people for having conferred the greatest benefit upon 
them. I entreat you therefore, gentlemen of the jury, to acquit Lysias, remembering both 
this and the other arguments which I have used. Otherwise who in the world will be more 
unfortunate than Lysias, if his opponents are to take part of his property by force and part 
of it is to be given to them by you, or who will be happier than the)", if you intend not only 
to pardon them for their past misdeeds but also now, whatever proposals they may make to 
you, to vote for all their demands .' Against Hippotherses on behalf of a maidservant.' 

Fr. 6. iv— V, 7. [*^0lJl'C7nt [6t]n "^^'[y] • • [ ]tov Qc6pi't](TTOs lyrpos^ i'pas lo'jAfdoi/ irav 

i. . . .]rai. mra yap Sii\6r]Ke ?]^' u>me pi/ po^vov fVjiTpdirovr elvat Kf\_. . . a\\Xd K[a]i Tiji/ oiaiav 
oi'jrt 6* (Tatpw |^06o]at |^r)fr]ra) TpuiKoi\j\i pvdi ei^coifa, ^iktjv ?j€nv ^KrltTaU SlfofortS/? 7rp\v 

8vvaL TOV 7p*,iOV, 6[ Sc pi), VTTfprjpepov fivai. dovs fie oiairfp etViii si ('lyjelu papTVpwi'j dTroiTT\f]i'ov\p]fvos 
afayKti^npat diKu^fadai. Qeupt'Tjams fie irpu rnv piv i}v poi <f)i\os Ka\ fTolpos, I'vvi fie" Trettr^eis inro riiiv 
ipwv e';(^pa)[' TaOra re TTpdrrfi Km nXXo OTlovv av (is fpf \(^r6\pj)iT(v. irpw fi[e TtWTrAv Tj\fi'i]v rnv 
S^iaipopyiv •j/et'eV('[a]i, ovtc in vu>xX'l\Ta owe anijTria-a [ro dpy^^vpiov, oifie ... (1. 293) . . . ri/i' dwiyitiji' 

[ jcrecds ouf> atrof (jf[. . . .jret. dvayKrj 8' ai[70)j, ei pfj Trap* e'poC- tjo dpyinpiov c;^et. ^vo'iv 

^nr[epoy,j rj ircip eVe'pou <pd^G\K'^fiv eijXTjf^eVat J) avtihv to ndv}\ eVreriKeVat rw [Ofofolrt'fi;;. et p\f)y 

F 2 


To[iVt'K] ?rn[p'] fV/pou (pt;<T(i ^u\r](pc'var Ka7i[. . . (1. 3 1 5) Trap' e'po^v^ ([ ] rex tov avvft\^So\ro\s 

. . A Tr)V UTT'ipiav OKvluv] dfrjOrjViu, 7r[iip(i] §€ twv pTjWfTOfTai^v^ ro'ts i)(\6]J.o\U- n^Lovv Sni/ei'^iel r^at, 
Kafilrot 7r[a)?l (Ikos ra fiiv f/ia e[Tc]/jn(y (rvv^K^ihyoaOAi ^ atijr&i hi Trap' iTfpan/ d\i\ •fl^nrSlan ; wff 8* 
ov , [. .Iroff i;^[i'(i)V[f 1 ' auTW p.\. .1 oWof Trap* er^'pov dap^€i\^f(T6ai pfya vp[t\i' TfKpT]ptnif e'p&j. Oj^e] yap 

[eJ;(o[yl7yft dc, Spalcrt [fif A(Jii'{;(ria TTaf ;(tj\[i 1 1« dpa)^^pas .... /imt^oi/ fiu'\i'[(rf ... (1. 338) 

npos pkv ovv t[(j nnp f]r€p\ny' fpd^Keitf ft[\^(^6Va]t TatTd Xfyoi* tir [^€ 1 . ovrns apyvpUov .... 

I'j/xa? Tor 0€dfp!'r;(Troi' A'Tjei'^ei' ;^p'} [f'^frd^f if .'' tto)]; etKo,- ftjTtv r;[ 1^' dpyvpiov TTflpltiSffu'] 

cfaulr.ji' eif toi' e(r;^n[Toi'] Kii'5[u]r'oi' eX(^oiTa (fn[i to^ TavTr^v ^8j 'vafiiv cVtffilfl^at toIj f)(^$po'is ] Kal (rls) 
(jVT\ia\ (TCpodpa CTrfe JTpeTTf tt; [tJl';^,^, (I [fja^' T[t] f^aij)vqi [ej-rn^ei', wore TTfpi ro awptt tipa Kai tov 
l^iov ilvaylKaaBy^vaL nnde'iv fls toutIo 7rpl*[ijKojyrn ei eSu [6] i7^i[offl {jnfpi]^ipov ovtIos ] k] it [WJi- ouT6)f 
dvnrjTos 0(7t[i]« [aijroi/ 7rapaaKei'dffT[ai 6776 Toif €;([S]poir yeve<j6ai ] [9 T^i: oCrus a<j>puit> oorif . . . 

■'. . . As he was my associate, I gave Theomnestus 30 minae, when he was obliged to 
pay a penalty to Theozotides before sunset or else become liable for default. Having given 
him the money naturally without witnesses and being defrauded of it, I am compelled to go 
to law. Theomnestus previously was my friend and asc;ociate, but now at the persuasion 
of my enemies this is how he acts, and he would have dared to do anything else against me. 
Before this quarrel between us arose, I neither troubled him nor demanded back the 
money ... (1. 295) He must, if he has not had the money from me, make one of two 
pleas, either that he lias received it from some one else, or that he himself paid Theozotides 
in full. If on the one hand he is going to assert that he received it from some one else, . . . 
(1. 313) . . . he hesitated to ask from me who was aware of his straits (J), but thought fit to 
borrow from persons who were going to inform his enemies. Is it, however, probable that 
my money should be lent out (,?) to others, and that he should borrow from others than 
myself? To show that he did not think fit ... to borrow from some one else, I will pro- 
duce an important piece of evidence. When he was providing a men's chorus at the 
Dionysiac festival, ... (1. 338) With regard then to the assertion that he received the money 
from some one else, that is my answer. But if (he paid from) the money which he had 
by him, you must put these questions to Theomnestus. Is it likely that he would have 
overlooked the extreme danger which he incurred and put so much power into his enemies' 
hands .' Who ever had such e.xcessive trust in fortune, even if suddenly he became possessed, 
that he was obliged to endanger his body and life as well, having come to this pass if the 
sun set leaving him a defaulter? Who is so senseless as to place himself at the mercy 
of his enemies, or who is so foolish as to . . .' 

3. (n'K]o0fl>'[r : cf. xii. 5 eTretSf/ 5 ol rpiaKovra novTjptn ptv Ka'i (Tvko(Jmivt(u ovrfs (Is tiji/ dp;(rjv 

KariaTrjtrav, to which 11. 2-4 were probably similar. 

5. oJror means Lysias, as apjiarently throughout the fragments of this speech ; cf 
II. 43, 81, 144, 225. His opponents are s]3oken of as oiVoi in 11. 32 and 229, while rovrm' 
in 1. 140 refers to both Lysias and Hippotherses. The letter following outw can be 
y, t, or TT. 

8. [rirjXf/xapxoi' is rather long for the lacuna, but seems necessary; cf. the next n. and 
xii. I 7 sqci. 

9-10. T-qv [ovmaji/ acpdXovTo: cf. 11. 29, 162, and Plut. Vil. Lys. 835 e rav TptuKoiTa 
•jTapoKa^ovTuiv Trjv TvoXiv i^tTViUfv . . . d<jiatp(9€\s ttji' ovtriav Kai tov dbfk(^ov Ilo\€pap\ov. ^oiKiajv 

could be read both here and in 1. 29 (cf. 1. 44), but is unsuitable ; for Lysias with his brother 
owned three houses (xii. 18), and the price mentioned in 1. 30, which must be noi less than 
30 and seems to be 70 talents, is too high for a single house ; cf. xix. 29, where a house 
costs 50 minae, and xix. 42, where a house and land cost 5 talents. A list of Lysias' losses, 
given in xii. 19, includes 700 shields, 120 slaves, money, clothes, and furniture. 

1606. LYSIAS 69 

II. fv nHpmsi.: according to xii. 17 Lysias went to Megara from Athens, and Plut. 
op. cit. 835 f states ha]y(v h Mf-ydpoif. The Piraeus is mentioned here as being the head- 
quarters of the exiles after its capture by Thrasybulus. One of the houses of Lysias and 
his brother was there; cf. Plato, Rep. 327 a. 

1 1-12. i)|i]oK: cf 1. 78. 

12-13. a-n\n^t\^)\a6al : or ai[nKo;jt|f]eo-^«l ; cf •[oyjiffijf'oi in 1. l6. ay.[ Of ul.[ COUld alsO 

be read, and the verb may be intransitive ; but possibly ra faiTov, which m 1. i6 has a line 
above it, was added in the margin of 11. 12-13. 

16-17. «["M'f"'']^'" : cf 1. 43 and 12-13, 'i- The omission of m tavjcv here is no 
improvement, unless the words had been inserted in the margin of 11. 12-13. 

17-18. Neither Nicostratus nor Xenoc[les] is known from other sources. 

20. no-7n[S: Lysias had a shield-manufacturing business; cf xii. 19 and V\\x\.. op. cil. 
835 f, quoted in 11. 163-71, n. 

29. ov<T\i.av: cf. 11. 9—10, n. oDo-iav . . . (tJkXIXt/c/ [dfifrai/ a^jinv j 6f is possible. 

30. e/3^[oMi)ito]i/Trt : the first letter might be a- or m, and the traces of the second and 
third are very doubtful, but unless there was another word before the number, f^6[o/ii;ito]ira 
is preferable to e. g. (^ [rai TpmKoJiTn. 

31. [aTTfSoji'To is far from certain, especially since i or m can be read in place of v, so 
that the subject might be singular. If \ari(ho\vTo is right, the subject seems to be the Thirty 
Tyrants as contrasted with ovtoi in 1. 32, which refers to Hippotherses and his associates. 

32. a(\.\_a\iia\ai.: i. e. f^apyvpla-m : cf the contrast between u<pavrji and (pafepa ova-ia in the 

fragment of this speech quoted on p. 48. 

35-6. Cf 1. 163. 

38-44. For ovTos meaning Lysias cf 1. 5, n. The context does not suit the reference 
of ovTfis to Hippotherses, though there may be only a short gap between 11. 48 and 76 ; cf. 
int. p. 49. 

47. This line seems to be corrupt, tliough t.[.] (but not o[i't] or any other letter than 
o[) can be read in place of f[f]. A dittography of av 6« is the simplest hypothesis, but there 
may well be an omission of /^r; before o7ro5w[o-]i, and possibly [a>]v 8e av (jxtj) a7roSffl[o-]i should 
be read. 

48. The letter before pa can be s, but ;pav]epa is possible ; cf int. p. 48. 

83. [e]upt]KOTos suits the space better than [rflvpqKnTos : in 1. 153 the spelling of '/I'StijinofeiT-f 
is uncertain. 

86. [;^aXej7ra)? (jyepoiTos ; cf. xix. 50. 

89. ]uXov : n]v Tov is less suitable, and Upoiv]vpnv (cf Lys. Fr. 123 quoted on p. 48) is 

92-3. 2u(7ii.[6i)i'? : Smffm (genitive) or Smo-mjraitTa is possible; but cf Fr. 64, where 

araicr\vv\Tos 2coo-]iaSr;f can be restored in II. 736-7. irapaXaliai' [tov avata-;^vv]rov 2m(na[5i)^ 

could even be read here. Fr. 75, where 5w](7m8r,[ is not unlikely in 1. 781, may also refer 
to this person. 

93-4. Snjifiorrjj/ should perhaps be restored in 1. 93, but ji' en rrjv i;|[/ifpai' tiji-] o-iyitfi/if j- 
[I'l;:' is possible. 

102. This line is in the same position in the column as 1. 92. 

113— 18. Cf. XXxiv, II deivov yap av e'tq, a> uivSpfs^ ^AOrjvawij d or€ piv etjievynpev f^a\6p(0n 
AaKe^atpoviois tva Kar^Xdcopev, KnTfA^otrfi 5e <j,€u^6pfOa Iva pt) pa\ujpfBa. 

119. [opyi(ni\cr6e : cf xii. 30, 80, 90. With Tens e(i>vripe^vni]i ra vperipa cf. 11. 51O-I 1. 

124-5. Perhaps (][77eiTa. 

127-8. rat av\v6rl\Ka9 Te /cm To]iif vopovs could be read, but is contrary to Lysias' use 

of re. Tats (or Ta>v) (juji/5>;| itaic (or -Koiv) /cara Tojut vopovi is more likely. 

129. oKi/JKonTf ; i.e. in 11. 38 sqq. probably. 


129-35. Either r;| in 1. 129 or . .}« in 1. 130 is likely to belong to rjnas, which is 
expected about this point, being perhaps contrasted with t]ov[s] aiTi8i[/covf in 11. 133-4. If 
there was a pause after avTi&i\Koiii, the next sentence may have begun r;;j]fit [t-oitok] v/xik. In 
view of the stop, however, at the end of 1. 132, t]o<;[sJ avTibi[Kiivs may be connected with what 
follows, and mean both parties to the suit, not Lysias' adversaries, vfitv in 1. 134 clearly 
goes with (TTi,TpnTL\y.ev : cf. Plato, Apol. 35 d viuv iniTpinai . . . Kpwm. There is room for [Se wtpi] 
before rovrav in 1. 135, but Trepi TovTQ)v occurs shortly after in 1. 140. 

139. [K^iO'tl'l : cf. XXV. 10 ovTtos yap av blKaioTctTrjv (j^v) Kpiatv -jTepl avTwv TTOlolfyOe. For 

\yvaipL-qv\ there is not room, ivepi tov would be e.xpected before npayparos, but since Trept 
Toi/rui/ occurs in the next line, the sentence would be improved by the omission o'l ■Rpayparos. 
141. There seems to have been an omission of n at the beginning of this line, as in 
J 115- 

144—5. ^^" ^.^^'' 17 ^^"^^^ y^P Torf oudei' €^r]^apToif , , ., fj ttov vvv afpodpa TrpoOvprjaopiai 

XPicros (Jvat. 6o[|as Or &o[koiv seems to be inevitable, for the letter before o is more like 8 
than X, which is the only alternative. 

148. [npoo-TjKlovT : OT UTvp<pep\oiT. 

149. It is not certain that the space (the width of a letter) between tjl and 07-[il was 
blank, the surface of the papyrus being damaged. Whether p.ev had a St answering to it is 
not clear, and perhaps ^ci'^toi should be read. 

150. vjfjLiv: or i/j/jif. 

155—6. Cf, xii. 43 67ret8f) de rj vav^a)^ia Kni tj (Tvp<fiopa rrj TroXft eyevfro, 

I57~9' ^f- ^ii' 20 ovtk Kara to eXii^^taToif jiipos rrjs ovcias e'Xe'ou . . . irvyxavop^v^ xii, 22 
fiCTJjlf yap av Km epoi rovTOv rdyadov uiik eXaxia-Tof pepos, and especially xviii. 2 Ttol/ /zee KaKiov nvK 

fXdxwruv avTos peria^x^ pfpos. The v of ]u(rei/ in 1. 1 59 is fairly certain. A verb meaning 
 avoided' is expected, but (cf\vy(v cannot be read. 
160-2. Cf. 11. 8-10, nn. 

163—71. Cf. Plut. op. cit. 835 f cVt^e/iei/o)!' hi Tojv di^h 4>uX^ff t^ Ka^dfio), €7r«i ;^pr;(7t/ict)raT0ff 
aTTuvTUiv ai<pdq^ XP^H-^"^^ "^^ TTapu(rxo}v dpaxpas SiOf;(tXta? Kal dfrnidas hiaKoa-ias nepfpOcls re (Tvv 
'^ppdvi tntKuvpovs ipidOuxTmo TpiaKoaiovs, hvo t e7reta"e TtiXawa dovvai Qpa(Tudaiov tqv HXeiOf, ^evov 

avTM (better aurw) yeyomrn, which is clearly based upon the present passage, not, as 
Blass {op. tit. p. 339) supposed, upon the speech iripX rav ISlav (vepyea-iav (cf. 11. 177-9 "■)■ 
A shorter verb than eptaduia-aTo seems to have occurred in 1. 165, though cf xii. 59 iniKoipovs 
pio-dovadai. With the spelling T[€lXr)i in 11. 170-1 cf. awiy/c/ji as the nominative in 11. 181-2. 

173. -nap vptv. the traces of i are very slight, but there is not room for vpav, which is 
what Lysias probably wrote (cf. 11. 216-19, "•)> though later writers, e.g. Dio Cass. Exc. 
p. 66. 34, often use the dative with irapd in place of the genitive. 

177-9. '^^^ speech vpos 'imrodi'pcrrjv was probably delivered before that nepl ran ISium 
(vepye(Tiaiv. of which the contents and date are unknown. 

178. a[viapvriptcrKiiii': for puripi(T<iiv. which appears as a form of pipflja-Kdv in the Roman 
period, but is not likely to have been used by Lysias himself, cf. Porphyr. V//. Plotini 13 iv 

hi Ticri Xf^eciu iipapTavanfj ov yap *w fimv titfnptpvi'jaiifTni aXXci clvapi/r^plaKfTaty and P. Hamburg 

37. 4 (2nd cent.) pvr]pi<TKia6ai. quoted by W. Schmid in Bcrl. Phil. Woch. 191 4. 1568. 

184. (TTi pcv Tu>v T(Tpa\Kn tricoi/: i. e. at the fall of the Four Hundred, when several of the 
leaders escaped to Decelea ; cf Thuc. viii. 98. 

1 9 1-4. That two originally separate fragments, one attributed to the middles of 
11. 192-3, the other (Fr. 80) to the ends of 11. 191-4, are correctly placed admits of little 

194-7. The general sense is that Hippotherses took more pride in the destruction than 

in the building of the walls ; cf. xii. 63 /tniVoi (XCpoSp' av avrnv olpai ptra &fpia-T0K\(<ws TToXiTfvo- 
fievov npo(TTTOLii(j6ai iTpiiTTfiv OTToiS oLKodo^r]dij(riTaL Til Tfix^t oTTore Kal p(Ta Qr^papivovs onais 

1606. LYSIAS 71 

K(i6aiplBij(rfTni, and xiv. 39 ^ ^av Tei}(aii Ka6i-ipT)fifvuv ayavnKTtl. The first letter of ^[fio]v is, 

however, very uncertain, y, rj, i, k, v, tt, or t being equally possible. ot[i o](j[oio]w could be 
read instead of ot[i] ^[fio'Ji', with km instead of i; in 1. 196 (which as it stands is rather short) ; 
but this does not combine well with ovS o;j[o]iaf eXmSar in 1. 198. rav t(i)(u>v kt\. seems to 
be a genitive absolute. 

201. 0)1': The first letter can be r;, t, or a, but hardly v. 

203. fi.eTaiJL(\T)[(Ta]i' : cf. the use of the present participle absolutely in Isocr. 382 c and 
Plato, Phaedo 114a. 

207. ei/)ya[(r]n[T(i : eip-ya[iTlr[at is inadmissible. The next word may have been KaKa. 

212-13. Perhaps ■ne\i\jr)K.inna ToKmiTav. 

216-19. Thou,;,'h the remains are scanty, the general sense is fairly clear ; but in 1. 217 
&a\>\ would be expected to end the line, and there is certainly not room for both nv and ev 
after it. \va\i.av cannot be read. For x"?'"] '^"p" '"o" [(^'jm''^ "■no\a\i\Mi\^iv cf. 1. 172 and 

XX. 30 X^9^^ '^"P ^\^^v ilTTiikfipiiaviiv. 

230. The cancelling of ;re/ji is supported by X. 2 avyyvu>y.j]v av dxov airui Twv ftprjfiiiiwv : 
but cf. ix. 2 2 VTTfp Taiv iTfpKpavwu aSiKri lidraiv crvyyvu>p.r]v 7ro4ei(7^f, and xix. 56 TTfpi S« roO iruTpos 
. . . (Tvyyva/ir]!' e^fTf. 

239-46. [Si]a To[v] Xoj[you Toii]roii is Unsatisfactory, for the slight traces after to[u] do not 
suit Xo, and if the letter preceding ]rov were v, the tail of it would rather be expected to be 
visible. [Sila to[u]tov,[tou Xo]yoii is also unsuitable, and since this speech is for the prosecution 
it is not likely to have begun with a reference to a speech by the defendant. [Si]a ^[u] 
ay[<i} TOs Toi;]roii is possible, but we have not been able to restore the w-hole passage satis- 
factorily. [ftprjKe'jmi could be read in 1. 242, but like Xojyov is not appropriate, and Ste[6riK€'\u 
in 11. 242-3 is rather short. With (■rr]iTpanovs and oi-o-mi' in II. 244-5 cf. 11. 267-8. The 
vestige of a letter at the end of 1. 244 suggests f, 1, or v. Kfi[Xcvei a]\\a is too long. 

249. ejfoSoTiS^ji ; cf. 1. 300. He is not likely to be the same person as the eeofoTi'Sijs 
against whom lix was directed, for the fragments of that speech in P. Hibeh 14 are 
concerned with a ypatpfi irapmopMv on account of Th.'s proposals to alter the pay of soldiers 
and arrangements for benefiting orphans. Nor is he to be identified with the etofoWS^s 
Xopi)-yor Tpaywfimc mentioned by Dem. xxi. 59. With regard to the spelling, etofoWSi/f is the 
only fomi recognized in the Prosopogr. Alt. ; but eeoaSoTiSqs or eeoSoriSris is commonly 
found in Byzantine RISS. 

260. . . .]i' : or f7rf]i. 

267-8. Cf. 11. 244-5. 

269. The letter preceding 70 may be i or u. 

270. ]ai can be read in place of ji/. 

271. Perhaps roVf, unless o]Te was written twice by mistake. y€ is the only alternative 

to Tf. 

272. av(v p.^apTvpav : cf 1. 252. 

275. TToto Pju/ici/or : T), t, or m can be read instead of v. 

276. Cf. xii. 35 V ^ou acjias aiiTOvs rjyrjcrovTai 7Tfpt€pyovs vrrep u/xuiy TTjpovpivDvs. 
293-4. Probably anairrfWews or aTToSojo-fcof. 

294-5. ai{TiXflyf4 cannot be read without altering the text, though it is the word 

297. Svoiv 6aT[epov : cf. vi. 8, xii. 34. 

302-3. Possibly [(iXi]4>c\vni uv]k an[. 

312. The letter before tokov might be w, but is apparently not v. 

317-18. 0|/tj{fii/] 8eri6i]vai : cf. 1. 335, where these words seem to recur. But the o is 
lower in the line than would be expected and there might be one or two letters lost after it. 
The letter following k, if not v, is /j. 


320. The ()(6)iol are those of Theomnestus (cf. 1. 349), not those of the plaintiff (!. 258). 

322. The V of lifv is corrected from y.. 

325—6. Possibly ouK [ni^JTot : od;^ [ouJtos is not a satisfactory reading. The last three 
letters of avTox. are very doubtful, but the following ^ is nearly certain, so that T:[ap\ovTas 
and (\^\ovTos are excluded. 

330—2. Cf. xxi. 2 en 8 nv^piKTi ^npr^ytav fls Aiovvaia . . . eftKtjcra Kot tii'fjXuiaa avv t[; tov 
TfiiiToSos avadifTii ■nei/TaKUTxtXim 6pu;(^df. nX]jXas 8pax[lJius COuld be read. 

333 a-41. That Frs. 45 and 73 join together and are to be placed near the beginnings 
of these lines was ascertained after they had been printed in the miscellaneous section. 

335. Cf 11. 317-18, n. 8e <[ could be read. U !i(ri[6r,vat is right, the next word may be 


337. Cf. 11. 246 and 256-7. 

338-40. Cf. 11. 298-300. 

344-5. The word or words before apyvpwv may well have ended oi'JTo]f, corresponding 

to 11. 340-1. v[irapxov\To]i is inadmissible. 

348. (7ri[8]ei|ai : or em[.]q^m, which suggests no suitable word, though f7n[(?]r)|ai may 
have been written for em[S]eiim, as perhaps in 1. 738. [6]wa/jii/ is also difficult, but the v of 
[b]vv is almost certain. 

349. ThatTif has been omitted before ouT[m] is clear from 11. 356-7. For oit[w] o-f^oSpa 
cf. 11. 418-19. 

350. C-^, ii. 79 O^*^ €TTLTp€-\^avT€S 77ep\ UVTOyV TtJ ri'xtj. 

351-6. As the text stands, there is no construction for the infinitive amy[Kaa-6]t)vai in 
1. 353 and no verb for wort in 1. 355. The simplest course is to transpose aiare to 1. 352 
after [ejiia^fn, but the corruption may go deeper ; e. g. aia-re « tSv [0] t;Xi[os] vneprjpepov ol/T^^os 
may be transferred to 1. 352, or morf may be inserted there and a verb added for the second 
wore. For fit tovt'i^o 7Tp]o\j]KojuTa cf. Dem. xxviii. 5. 

362-3. Perhaps v\[iioiv or (o)iij[Tmt. 

367. Fr. 13 is perhaps to be placed immediately above Fr. 8, so that the stroke visible 
under the p. o(]opai in 1. 437 represents the stroke lost above [es in 1. 367. 

370-2. These lines apparently began more to the left than 11. 368-9. 

377—80. Cf. XXxi. 14 a)S ovv WKei T€ €if'Slp{i)na> . . . aKovanreTOiv paprvptnv, pnpTvpes. Here 

the mention of pdprvpa comes first. 
387. TTjii] vavv: cf. 1. 369. 
389. npns ] . uXioc: or pOSsibly ] . vXi/i' or ] . . amv or ]. . . vov. TTpus 'AppoSlov, TT. 'Apx'vov. and 

ff. XvTphov are titles of lost speeches of Lysias ; but Ap]po&inv cannot be read, and the speech 
TT. 'Apximv was concerned with Lysias' citizenship, which is clearly foreign to the subject of 
Frs. 8-9. Of the speech w. Xvrphoi' only one fragment is extant, wliicli is concerned with 
an assault, and the vestiges do not suit Xv]Tpivoi'. Fr. 20 possibly belongs to this line ; but 
cf. int. pp. 48-9. 

397. Possibly Ai/[<rins in some form ; but cf. int. p. 48. 

410. There was perhaps a blank space after aWa, indicating the end of a line. 

416. It is not certain whether a letter has been obliterated after oira, or there was 
a blank space before the vestige of the next letter, which might be a, i. e. aSiica i[ or a dtKm[. 
a 5iKa(r[rat could be read, but Lysias regularly uses S> avbpa tiKaa-Tal. 

418-20. Cf. 11. 349 sqq. It is, however, unlikely that Fr. 11 belongs to the speech 
against Theomnestus. 

436-8. Cf 1. 367, n. 

440-1. f(pa]i<iK€ : Fr. 16, in which 1. 449 ends ]e0a, may well belong to the ends of 
1. 440 and the two preceding lines. 

447-9. Cf. the previous n. 

1606. LYSIAS 73 

456. Possibly, but not very probably, Kara efo/ii'?)o-]roi; : cf. int. p. 48. The two 
extant orations «. efo/if. are distinguished as a and (3". There is a blank space above and 
below ]tov. 

457. Cf. 1. 389, n. There is a blank space above n-por [, but the lower margin is 
broken away. 

458. The blank spaces above and below this line indicate a title. 'Xirep <t-aviov -napa- 
vo/itov was the title of a speech of Lysias according to Athenaeus xii. 551 d, who quotes 
a long extract from an invective against Cinesias, a writer of dithyrambs and comedies, this 
berng one of the two speeches np6t Kivritriav mentioned by Harpocration. The speech Kara 
eeoCoTiSov was also concerned with Tra^ai'd/iwi/ (cf. 1. 249, n.), and Blass {op. cit. p. 350) 
assigns five other speeches to the same categorj-. But none of the other miscellaneous 
fragments of 1606 suggests any of these speeches as its source. 

459-60. Possibly a letter is lost before a7r«i[. There is a space below 1. 460, but none 
between II. 459-60, such as is found elsewhere between the last line of a speech and the 
title ; possibly therefore 7rpo(j[.] . [ is a heading like p.ipTvpfi, and not a title. The vestige 
of a letter would suit y, r), ,, k, p., v, n, t, or v, and the lacuna between it and npos, if not 
blank, is likely to have contained o, since any other letter ought to have left visible traces. 
No speech of Lysias vpos o[. . . is known, and there is no reason to connect this fragment 

with the title of civ Trep'i rfjs ' OvopoKXeovs dvyarpos. 

408-83. It is not at all certain that Fr. 24 comes from a point near the beginnings of 
lines; cf. 1. 483, n. 

472-4. Cf. xii. 77 TToXXaf rrioTEit nvrois (pya SeScoKcof, and 1. 716, where tti(t\tls perhaps 

481. Apparently not Sr}[\nvoTt. 

483. ]'ipf>' Ka\ov[ : or ]r]p (fKoKoilpiv : in which case ]rip is probabl}- not the beginning of 
a line. 

490. aa>T[: 2(o(T[mSi;i (cf. 11. 92-3, n.) is inadmissible. 

493. /3f^n[t: cf. 1. 602 fi\(i3atoi and Lys. Fr. 310 (from Harpocration) /if/inicoo-fmr S/ki;? 

ovopa la-TiV tjv Siraforrai 01 wvr](Tdpfvoi ti tw ano&upeva, av i'Tcpos piv ap(^i(TJirfri] tuv TrpaffevTos, 6 8c 
prj 0f/3(Jio(. f vi'oTE Ka'i dppafiiyvot povov Sodevroi flra ap<pt<Tfir]Tria(WTus tov (Kuyy^avf rt)v rrjs /Sf^aito- 
o-fojs &LKriP 6 TOV appa^Mva Sovi tu> Xajiom. Avaias iv hvcrX Xiiyoit. a/i^]io-/3i;7[ OCCUrs in 1. 604 

and n/j(^il(r/3r;Tet in 1. 547, SO that all three Frs. 25, 31, and 39 may have come from one of 
the two speeches to which Harpocration was referring. In any case they probably belong 
to an oration different from those against Hippotherses and Theomnestus; cf. mt. The colour 
of Frs. 31 and 39 suggests that they are to be placed near each other. 

496. 16 . [: \ep\u>mpoi (cf. Lysias Fr. 123 and p. 48) might be restored, but cf. the 
previous n. 

506-11. Cf. 11. 118-20 Knn-o[t] SiKaiMf ai/ [op-ytfoi](r5f Toij fu>vTip(\yoi\i ra vpfTfpa and 

xxxi. 33 poms 817 .. . SiKaias oiS' av dyavaKToirj prj tvxo)v. Fr. 26 may well belong to the speech 
Trpof 'limoeipaijv, but the proposed restoration of 11. 506-7 makes those lines shorter than 
usual by one or two letters,- and eiri rav 7TaT[ptaiv seems to be a mistake for em tois 7raT[pioir : 

cf. 1. I cVi Tois yey(vr]p('vois tiyavaKroiii. 

520-9. Fr. 28 probably joins Fr. 29 ; cf. the next n. 

530-5- That Frs. 29 and 30, both from the bottoms of columns, join, as indicated in 
the text, admits of hardly any doubt; the position assigned to Fr. 28. 524-9 at the 
beginnings of these lines is attractive, but not certain. A new sentence begins in I. 533 
with <OToS«|, and ano8ei]^Q> [T]oii'[vf a]vTov would be expected ; but the traces of the letter 
following I suggest no other vowel than a, and a7roSfi|a[i or ajToSet$a[s is difficult to construct. 
The o of 01 . in 1. 534 is nearly certain, but the next letter might be v and the third is quite 


536. The left-hand part of the t of ra is missing, and there is no external evidence for 
T being the first letter of the line. There is certainly not room for a \av a\vTw. 

537-8. (pipoiTo [t]i;v I [;fapi]i' is possible. Frs. 28-30 might belong to the speech n-por 

'Imradepa-J]!/: cf. 11. 171-3. 

539-48. Cf. 1. 493. n. It is tempting to place Fr. 53 to the left of Fr. 31, so that the 
tip of the a- of ]iJL(f)e(T[ in 1. 696 would belong to the bottom of the a- of YdrjTd in 1. 547. The 
fibres suit well enough, though the two fragments would still not actually join each other. 
Lines 544-7 would then run [. . . .]ai . [. . wloXXa >]iJ-ap\[T . . . .]\ei (or ]a «) ns o-oi (or nui 
01) priBfu I [. . . . K^adrfKoiv ^pajiri|[. . . . r]]ij.(pea[ir]T(i rat, which remains obscure. 

554. The letter following {[i]a-€v seems to begin with a vertical stroke and not to be e. 

559. S]iayoiM(i'os : the middle of this verb is used by Plato, but not elsewhere by Lysias. 
]vayop(vos can be read. 

601-6. Cf. 1. 493, n. 

641-7. It is not certain that Fr. 44 belongs to 1606. 

648-53- Cf. 11. 333a-4i, n. 

693-7- Cf. 11. 539-48, n. 

716. Cf 11. 472-4, n. 

725. 7rXo]uo-(coTn[T : cf. 11. 153-4. 

735- l'8'/l<" : the ;; is clear, but f7r]iS(i|ai may be meant ; cf. 1. 348, n. 

736-7. For avai(Txvi'[Tos 2M(r]mSi)f cf 11. 92-3, n. But Lysias made speeches vpis 
'A^KifiidHqv and npbs 'ApxeliuiSrjv, and either of these two names can equally well be supplied. 

773-6. Cf. 11. 333a-4i, n. 

781. For 2w]iTia8?)[ cf 11. 92-3, n. 

785. Perhaps e(o\pvrja-Tos or eeo[fo7i8i;f (cf. 1. 249, n.). 

801-4. Cf. 11. 191-4, n. 

809-12. Whether this fragment belongs to 1606 is doubtful. There is no other 
instance of a coronis in the papyrus. 

829. ]m o .\v[(jtai can be read, in which case Fr. 87 would belong to the speech vrpos 


858-9. Fr. 128 is probably to be placed to the left of Fr. 97 with a slight gap between 
them, in which case the combined reading is ]Kav tiutc f7rf[ and m a\v$pti biKa\crrai. 
865. Possibly ]fii o .'\[vo-inf ; cf 1. 829, n. 
869. Possibly 1 Au(t[i<is ; cf 1. 829, n. 
934-3- Cf. li. 858-9, n. 

1607. HVPERIDES(?), For Lycophron. 

Height 27-5 cm. Late second or early third century. 
Plate III (Frs. 5 + 4). 

These fragments of a lost oration, found with 1606, were originally more than 
60 in number, but have been reduced by a tjuarter through combinations. At 
least ten columns are represented, the longest fragment (i) containing parts 
of three with some continuous passages ; but of the other pieces only Fr. 5 is of 
much value, and not more than about 100 lines in all can be restored. The order 
of the fragments is uncertain ; but the similarity in colour and texture of Frs. 2- 
la suggests that they are to be placed near each other, and suitable positions have 


been found for Frs. 3 and 4 in combination with Frs. 2. ii and 5 respectively. That 
Fr. 14 belongs to Fr. 2. ii is far from certain (cf. 11. 159-62, n.), for Frs. 13-20 form 
another group, differing from the rest in colour. The handwriting is an upright, 
rather irregular uncial of the late second or early third century, the letters being 
as a rule somewhat widely separated. The script sometimes, e.g. in Frs. 13-20, 
tends to become more compact ; but there seems to be no change of hand. There 
were 39-40 lines in a column, and 11-18 letters, usually 13-15, in a line. The 
common >-shaped sign is used for filling up short lines, being duplicated in 1. 87. 
Iota adscript was written. High stops were employed, these sometimes approxi- 
mating to the middle position, but probably without any intentional distinction. 
All these, together with occasional diaereses over 6 and v, a mark of elision 
in 1. 230, and an accent in 1. 455, are due to the original scribe, as are certainly most 
of the corrections; but the alterations in 11. 15, 71,93, and 424 were possibly made 
by a different person. 

The oration was evidently in defence of a certain Lycophron, who is men- 
tioned several times by name (11. 28, ic6, 160?, and 287), but elsewhere is usually 
called ovroi. He was accused of adultery with a woman whose husband was ill 
(11. 180-8), the main subject of Fr. i being a denial of the charge that Lycophron 
had dug a hole in the wall which divided his house from hers. It is also 
evident that this person is identical with the Lycophron defended by Hyperides 
in an oration of which a few fragments from the beginning and the whole of the 
concluding portion are extant in P. Brit. Mus. 115. That speech was similarly 
concerned with an accusation against Lycophron of adultery with an unnamed 
woman whose husband was in a dying condition ; her brother Dioxippus, a 
distinguished athlete (Hyperid. Lycophr. \ 5), is obviously identical with the 
Dioxippus of 1607. 285, and the Theomnestus alluded to in 1607. 219 as one of 
the chief witnesses for the prosecution is no doubt the same as the accuser 
Theomnestus who is bitterly attacked in Lycophr. § 2, while there is probably 
a reference in 1607. 283 to Charippus, the second husband of the woman 
in question {Lycophr. § 3). Since the British Museum oration was composed for 
delivery by the defendant himself, who speaks in the first person, 1607, in which 
Lycophron is mentioned in the third person, cannot belong to the missing part of 
it, though it must have covered the same ground. The Oxyrhynchus fragments 
therefore belong to another speech delivered in connexion with this cause celi:bre 
of about 340 L. C. 

From the British Museum papyrus it is known that the proceedings against 
Lycophron took the form of an ilaayytXia, which in the first instance was brought 
before the 6^/^oy by the famous orator Lycurgus in the absence of Lycophron 
from Athens on military service at Lemnos. In the fifth and the earlier half of 


the fourth century B. c. eio-ayy^Aiai brought before the aijfj.oi, either directly or 
through the agency of the /^odA?), were usually tried by the whole oTy/xos, as e.g. in 
388 in the case of Ergocles, against whom a speech of Lysias is extant ; but after 
361 the normal practice, as illustrated chiefly by the orations of Hyperides for 
Lycophron and Euxenippus and that of Lycurgus against Leocrates, seems to 
have been to refer such cases to a court of dicasts ; cf. Lipsius, Attisches Recht, 
i. 176 sqq. Lycurgus is known from quotations to have composed two speeches 
against Lycophron, and it is generally supposed that one of these was delivered by 
himself before the whole Stj/hoj, while the other was written for delivery before the 
dicasts by the chief plaintiff, a certain Ariston, this being the speech to which Hy- 
perides' oration for Lycophron was the reply (Blass, Att. Bcrcdsamkeit, iii. 59). The 
line of argument adopted in 1607 renders it impossible to regard the speech as the 
work of Lycurgus, and there is some a prioi-i probability that the author of it was 
Hyperides. This orator was rather widely read in Egypt, for six of his speeches 
are preserved more or less completely in four papyri from that country (682, 
a fragment of a lost oration, may also belong to himj, whereas, of his con- 
temporaries other than Lycurgus, Demades and Dinarchus are not represented 
in papyri, and neither Aeschines, who according to Pseudo-Plutarch 840 e wrote 
only four speeches, nor Demosthenes, whose orations are nearly all extant, 
is suitable as the author of 1607. Like Lycurgus, Hyperides may well have 
taken part in the proceedings before the StJ/mos concerning Lycophron in addition 
to the subsequent trial before the dicasts ; but the employment of the phrase 
£ av&pfi biKacTTaCin 1607. 221-2, not Sj avbpes'AdrivaioL as in Lysias' speech against 
Ergocles, is irreconcilable with the hypothesis that the hijfxos as a whole was being 
addressed. Lycurgus in his oration against Leocrates uses w avopei, S 'Adi^valoi 
and 2> avbpei bi.KaijTa!. indiscriminately, but in a speech delivered before dicasts, and 
if Hyperides was the author of 1607 he must have written two orations for 
delivery at the same trial, one (the British Museum papyrus) spoken by Lyco- 
phron, the other (1607) spoken either by the author himself or by a third person. 
The British Museum oration concludes with an appeal from Lycophron to a certain 
Theophilus to speak on his behalf, and it is to this speech, also composed by 
Hyperides, rather than to a speech delivered by Hyperides in the first person, that 
we are disposed to attribute 1607. This hypothesis is distinctly supported by 
internal evidence. Hyperides was censured by several ancient critics, particularly 
Hermogenes, for carelessness in his choice of Ae'^'eis (cf Blass, o/>. cit. iii. 25 sqq.), 
and 1607 has several not strictly Attic expressions, which seem to be taken from 
common life. Thus a-niinaadai with an accusative (1. 28) and napaoriutTrav (1. 69) 
are not attested before Polybius, nor is fyenjOi} (1. 63, n.) with certainty before 
Philemon, a&ixa in 11. 32 and 76 is used in a manner approximating to its third 


century 11. C. use as 'slave', and it is possible that OLaXiyecrdai in 1. 97 is used 
de conatbiUt, which would be exactly parallel to the rare use of hiaKiytcrQai. in the 
sense of 7r\7/o-idf€tr toTj ywai^i ascribed to Hyperides by Moeris, p. 195 (= Blass, 
Fr. 171). That quotation, together with two similar references in Pollux to 
Hyperides' use of 6ieiXey/^eVoy, is assigned by Blass to the orationwept 'I>pwrjs, but 
the Moeris quotation might even refer to the present passage. There arc also 
several other agreements with Hyperides in points of diction; cf 11. 26, 71-3, 82, 
86-8, 108, III, 128, 220-3, nn. 

Against the attribution of 1607 to Hyperides it may be urged that the 
British Museum papyrus has the title at the end (cntoXoyia vzip AvK(j(j)povoi) 
without the addition a or /3', and proceeds to the speech for Euxenippus, and the 
ancient references to the speech for Lycophron (four in Pollux, one in Anti- 
atticista in Bekker, Anccd. p. 97) do not mention more than one. But the British 
Museum papyrus contains only three selected orations, and since the quotations in 
Pollux and Antiatticista from the speech for Lycophron do not occur in it, they 
might even refer to 1607, not to that speech. If there were two speeches for 
Lycophron, sometimes distinguished as a and //, the ignoring of that distinction 
by Pollux and Antiatticista would be no more remarkable than the failure of 
Harpocration in seven out of nine cases and of Suidas twice to state which of the 
two speeches of Lycurgus they meant by Kara AvK6(f>povos. Moreover the title 
of 1607 may have been something different from viifp AvK6(f)povos fi'. Accord- 
ing to Pseudo-Plutarch 849 d Hyperides composed 77 speeches, of which 53 
were genuine. The titles of nearly 70 are known, and none of these is at all 
suitable for identification with 1607, except possibly a speech which is vaguely 
described by Pollux as -TUD/yopu-Js-. But the scholiast on Aeschines, Dc falsa leg. 
§ 18, gives the number of Hyperides' orations as 170, and though the figures 
assigned by this scholiast to the speeches of the orators are in general less trust- 
worthy than those of Pseudo-Plutarch, and in some cases (e. g. in regard to Lysias 
and Isaeus) certainly corrupt, the figure 77 for Hyperides may well be too small, 
while, even if correct, it leaves a small balance of unknown speeches, of which 1607 
may have been one. That Athenian advocates sometimes composed two 
orations for delivery by different speakers at the same trial is known from the two 
extant orations of Lysias against Alcibiades, of which the second is not a reply 
by the speaker of the first, and is not parallel to the second speech of Demosthenes 
against Aphobus ; cf. Blass, i)/. cit. \. 492. Though open to some difficulties, the 
view that 1607 passed in Egypt as the composition of Hyperides offers the most 
satisfactorj- explanation. Whether it was actually genuine is more doubtful, 
in view of Pseudo-Plutarch's rejection of one-third of the speeches assigned to 
Hyperides. While the first oration of Demosthenes against Stephanus is 



generally regarded as authentic, the second is not ; of. Blass, op. cit. iii. 409 sqq., 
473-5. But against the hypothesis that 1607 is a later composition ascribed 
to Hyperides must be set the apparent mention in 11. 218-20 of two individuals, 
Anaschetus and Criton, who are known from an inscription of 340 B. C, the 
approximate date of the British Museum speech. 

We are indebted to Mr. Lobel and Dr. Hude for several good suggestions 
in the restoration of this papyrus. 

Fr. I. 

13 lines lost 

\tOVt6\v 5i[o]pL'^at TOV 

15 [toi\o]v T7;[y] TTpoi ■'"[[o]]r 

[ai>&p]co7T0i' o/xeiXia^ 

[evelKef ovSa/xcoi 

[Tri6]ai'0i' iaTLv ovre 

ya[p] (OS (npoi) tovs Trporepov 
20 avTon XitTOvpyovy 

TaS KaL TTav O Tl KfXfV 

[01] irpodvficoT vno/j.e 

21. I' of nav corr. 

Col. i. 

SeSrjXcoKev ovQ 

25 Tl yfuoixevTjs irpos 
avroi' a-<\riiia-)( 
iKHvoL TTjv -^peiav 
[a];re(7rafro odtv Av 
KO(ppci)y em to tov 

30 TOf)(ov Biopv^ai Ka 
Tr]Tr[ei)(^0]r] prjKiTi 

[tCOp] <TCo[fJ.]aTCOl' [. . .] 

[. . o]ixoia>s Tf[ 

5 or 6 lines lost 

Fr. I. Col. ii (complete). 

40 [. . . .]a6ai ovK av 8im 
[p]vis TOP TOL-^ov no 
[Oyv yap avOpoDTTos 
[H^iqSiv KaTeneiyo 
[njevos aXX c^wi' Trjv 

45 [<]^ofcriai' /cat ra nap e 
KeivrjS ilSfvai Kai 
TO, Trap avTOV Xfyetv 
[KJai T[ovi ? • •] • ovs o 
[ ] noiftaOai 

50 [ ] • 9^ ^'"'f 

[ ]ycoi' a . [.]ai 

Fr. 1. Col. iii (complete). 

anep ovtol n[povdfv ? 
80 TO- I'vv 8 (k[(]ii'[o]i' jxev [ 
ecopcou Ka[6] vnepfSo 
Xrjy a(T6[(]i/oos Sia 

K€lfiep[o]l' TaVTTjV 

Se T[rif T]r]S o[i]Kias 
85 n[f\XXoyaai' Kvpnv 
i\{\v TT[o\Xy trpo ocpdaX 
ficoi' aviXafi^a 
rov prj TTaOofTOS 


90 i/Trocy^axriy oov av 


[ ]•';'' e'T[. .] . 

[ \VT(0V Tr]\l 

K0[VT0S ? Co]y OvSilTO 

55 Te [ jixYo Kai 

To[vTa>L ovSe]no6 o 
Xp[efj.ijs ? rr]v] oiKiai 
an[(nrfv ?] koi ji-qv 
aSvY\aT6\v y€ flYiv 
60 Ta^tv TO ray 6epa 
TTaifas avrrji irpo^ 
TovTov ScacpepeaOai- 
Tt9 [y]ap av ovTcoi eye 
I'rjdr] dpao-fia ware 

65 7/ Ta TTUpa TOVTOV 

prjOft'Ta- gra wapa 

TOVTOV p-qOiVTo.'^ 

V Ta nap fKeiy?]^ 

TTpoy TOVTOf TTa[pa 
70 a-icunrjaai ttjs i'^iafy 
exOas [efjeAca- npo 

[Xh[p09 Si] r,V O KLV 

[Svvo^ ei ? /j](t, yap 

[ ]«' ffVf 

75 [ ]i'(ip- 

[ jf Ta 0-0) 

[fJ-a-ra ]vyqu 



9^. 1. [&\l.opv)(6qvai. 

Col. i (top). 

"^ [ Jf CTVliOl 

{'^ ]l'OL KVpL 

TeTT[pa]^ai'- ovkow 
0VT[e SyepvxOrjfai 

TOl' r[[l;]])^OI/ VTTO TOV 

Tov niOavov oVTe 
95 ficodei Ka6a7r[(]p Ae[ 
yfi Tais Bipairaivai': 
SiaXiyiaOai- t[li>o^ 
yap ii'iKiv [tl ? irpoi 
[[yap]] avTou r[auTay 
TOO SiiV€x[6-nraL eSei ? 
Of (piXolcppoi'ea-Tepof ? 
0'/ TTjf [S«nroifr]s ? 
7rpocr(pf[po/xepr]^ av 

Tooi- en\ 

105 Tl TTOT a[. . . 

Soi'TO^ [. . . . 

KaL I'T) Ji[a . 
no re TOP /ie[. . . 
wVeAa/Se K[ai 
TOl' (5»;A[. . . . 
SiT7o6 vtt\. . . 
Kai KaTfTl. . . 

115 aficpoTepl ov 


<op a-vp[ 

95- Second a of KaeaT,[(]p corr. from 0. 

Fr. 2. 

Col. ii (top) + Frs. 3 and 14? 
(v)fi€is 01 fi\[. . . .]ov SiKa 
160 ^oj/Te|[y AvKo^po]yos Ka 









[ 1 . VCJ^l 

\ \c£irarinv 

-J-. - 1- 

... .1 TTCCDV 

[ Ira* aX 

\\a . . 

. _ - . .lurn' 

r .1 SLfinrfii 

... .J -...i-i-i 



[ II 

letters ] . (tv 

[ 13 

» ] • 

[ '3 

] • 

[ ^' 

„ ]iKa 

[ J-+ 

[ 14 

[ 13 

„ ]o 

[ ^^ 

]. aX 

[ ^^ 

„ ] . Tt(T 

[ ^2 


[ 13 

» ] • 

[ 13 

,, ]a.(r 

[ '3 

„ ]<ca 

[ ^4 

[ H 

[ 14 

). ]v 

[ ^-^ 

" ]? 

[ ^4 

» ] • f 


lines lost 

Fr. 3. 

200 ]KaOv[ 


Tayva>\[<Te.'\(T6[e aXX ?] eav 
ye aa>(f)po\^v]r]T[e . . .] . [.] 

flT) fJ.0v[0V 

fiov^ aK\\a Kai . . 

165 t^ovs [ 


« • [ 

2 lines lost 

170 [. .]i(j\6at . . [ 

TTOV I Ka6 v[ 

ai>Te^€a[6ai .... 

TTcoy Tri6a[voi' . . i 

evai TOii . [ 

175 TOVTa To[ 

\cr\6ai fiiv . [ 

jni' ex°[ ^ 

XiKi^a^v 7a[ 


183 8 aTreTTi[ 

ucrdai TTi[ 

5[. .] TOV [ 

fliV T0V[ 

v[ttMp <oy [ 

185 o-[[o]]co0po;'[ 

5 o/xoAoy€i[. . . . 

Kai yap n rty [. . . . 
Tr]iT[. . .] Tav[. . . . 


190 av 5_';Tr[ 

fiiav ai'aTa[. . . . 

KUT avTov t[. . . . 

eiTTuv ';^icti[o- . . . 

[[t]]6£ IX€V iK T\OV ? 8l 




Fr. 4- 

201 ]p[.]A[ 


Frs. 5 (top) + 4. Plate iii. 

205 fievov [ na 

p avTOiv [ 

T1]V iTTlT^ . 

TOfXiVOV . [. . . 

2 10 fT]oi'y (TVl'Tro\l[TiV 

o/ievovi Sta(3o[\r]i' 

TLaty ovy -eKfiiij 

T0VT0V9 KeX(y[eL 
215 KaTaSiKa^itv- Xipr) 

T[a]i vx) Aia Tai^i t<ov 

K7]Se<TTa)y /^[apTV 

p[i](its Auaa^erlov 

Kai Qio/ifTjaT'iov Kai 
220 KpiTcuvo^ a? /caA[a)9 

SpfS SiKaarai /i[jy 
Trapep[ya>9] i^e[Ta 
aar tt^v [ya]/3 oKri\y Ka 
225 T7;yop;[af] | €K to[. . 
[. .]roiS [. . .IrjaSl. . 
[• • •]!?[• . .] I • • • [• • 

195 itpOapKiV\aL Tr]i' ar 

dp^l^COTTOl' [ € 



Fr. 6 (top). 

ya/9 af avT\_ e 

/C€U'Ol»y To[ 

230 o^' ofTo; Tq[ e 

irpaTTOv o[ 

[. .]a<Ta . . . . [ 

[• ■]^ ^rep[ 

[• •]V ?[•] • T • [ 

235 [. .]yT<o . .[ 

[fj.]ii'oi? niOiafOf e 

[a]Tii' ovre t[ 

[.]r] . antvS[ 

[ofJTe TOV t[ 

240 [. . . .]opT . r][ 

[icr]Tavai- t . [ 

[. .] 7rpaT7«[ 

[• A-^ri.: 

[.] . . I'Tcy t[ 

245 [•••]• [ 

[ ji'oty [ 

Fr. 7. 
[ojrrcoy [ 

[• -M V 


250 yi'Qi . [ aKJ) 






iM-. 9. 

Col. ii. 

265 ]iot[ 

259 [. .>«[ 


Fr. 12. 






255 j'y 





280 ]TTep[- 


260 aaa6a[i 


6 . on\ 

Fr. 10. 

-67 M 

Fr. II. 

269 ] aw[ 

Fr. 13 (tops of cols.). 
Col. ii. 
[T\<ot Xa[pnr]TTCo[i] rrjf [a 
SeX(pi][i- i\is [0]\v[fiinai' 
285 aTroSrifiria'a.[i\ tov A[i 

a[o]ifTa TTjv ttoXlv Av 
KO<ppova Se Ti<os fi(i> 
^XyTiTre/xTTOi'Ta (Tria[TO 
290 [Xa's Xeyeif [ ]Kei 


Fr. 14 (top). 

[ ^OV SlKU 

f li'Oj Ka 


■] • [■] 


Fr. 15. 
Col. i. Col. ii. 

330 ?[ <P<^ 

vepav [ (TV 


a6ar a v 

TTfp coy [ 

335 >^oyoi[ 

Fr. 16. 


355 ^"4 


272 'pax[ 

' ]fX[ 

Col. iii. 

[• • •>[ 

295 Oev . [ 



6eiTar e[ 
300 ya(Tfj.[ 

5 lines lost 
306 . . . [ 

i.]ae[. .]e[ 

310 [.] . Tai . [ 
[. .]ico- k[ 

[.] . ov[ 

Fr. 18. 

375 M 

]K€tO . [ 
'^j(7T0V . [ 
] ^1" f[ 





rey Ka[6aTT(p Xe ? ttov . [ 

yet ne . [ e 360 TrapaS[ 

7j'£(rroXa[y tccv [ 3H0 

ra coy e^[ ra irX . [ 

340 Kovs ax?L .'?^![ 

;a ovf «(7r[i ?'"'■[ 

crKcuf k[ 365 Aea)[ 

. a Toj'" *co[ 

(Xiv6f[p Fr. 17. 

345 /^a/i-l • [ M 385 

/3a/coi[ ](rcr[ 

Toy [ ] • « • [ 

"^a ]-y[ 

Tay . [ 370 ]/Lii . [ 

.150 Cv^ • [ > «?"[ 390 

TO . [ ]aa[ 

end of col. 


Fr. 19. 



Fr. 20. 

>/>[•] • [ 

In" f^[ 

] . et Tois . 
]crai' m[ 
''vToi' e[ 

]• K- 





Fr. 21. 
Col. i. 

. .] TTOirjaacr 
. . .]Tiav ye 
 . TTJpoy avTOVS 

. .]y/ji[a]Tos 
.  e]Kfi[i']ov 
. . K^aTaaKfv 

, . .]tov . [ 
. .]Kova . [ 
. .]oL nept 
 -l^o) ei 
. .]yfiy 


Col. ii. 

-(08 a[ 
(i z 

ty. 22. 


] VTTO TOl'[ 

na }]poii'eia6[ai } 

]toi' to[ 
415 ]iiiai . . [ 

]yia6aL [ 

i^n-i • • [ 

Fr. 2 ]. 

] iTTilB\r] 

420 ]7ra/ioi{ 

]y /cat 7ra(7[»;? 
Vi'i'Tjy . [ 


406 [70 ? 

-| r 

410 y.[ 

]° "I'n • [ 


•l" /^f.n 

425 ].v.e[ 

Fr. 34. 

Fr. 35 (top). 

Fr. 27 (top). 



445 /^'? n 




]tov . [ 


IMvSe [ 

no Yov[ 


jaoy Se [ 

]ayS . [ 

Fr. 28. 


Fr. 36. 






] . a,VTo[ 


450 ]?'?[ 

435 ]t • [ 

]a<7L . [ 

] T^fp' [ 


Fr. 29. 

Fr. 3c. 

Fr. 32. 





]a_i. ajo-re . [. 

470 ]r . [ 

455 ] <5« [ 

I'"')" 7L- 


]tii^ to . [ 


o]iiiJ€;y iUTiv 

] . 6ipd\TTaiv 

] . iouy a7ra(7T[ 

end of col. 

']"• ^[ 

].S0l, T . 



]vos fliV . 


Fr. 31. 

460 ]_m ei/Xa . 




Fr- 33- 

] (?€ TCtfy . [ 

] ""pop 

475 ]^ov[ 

end of col. 

• X • • 


Fr. 34. 



Fr. 36. 

Fr. 37. Fr. 38 





joj't 496 ]??•[ 




490 ]?7L 

]!.' • [ ]f4 


485 M 


495 M 

480 <p[ 








Fr. ;^9. 

Fr. 40. 

498 ]..Si.[ 

500 v[ 

]i -ots . [ 


end of col. 

Fr. 44. 

Fr. 45 

508 ]TeT[ 

509 ]vo[ 


Fr. 41. Fr. 42. Fr. 43. 

502 ].t[ ]..[ 506 ]. vo[ 

]t[ 505 ]aTa[ ].[ 

Fr. 46. Fr. 47. 

510 ]7r[ 511 ]• r.4 

Fr. 1. (i) . . . TnvTti\u hi\ii\>v^ai Ton [to'ixo]v tj)[s] Tr^ot ti}i/ [ni'&ij\o>7rov ofiiXi'at [fi'fj/tfi' ouSa/iwf 
[Trtfljni'of earn'. iivti ya[p\ mt (jr/ior) rnvs Trporepov civTa> Xeirovpyovi^ras Kal nav o Tt Ki\(v\oi\ npoOv- 
pais inoi^evnvTas ^ii]v(x6<} SfSi'iXuKfv, oijff uti yevofxivrjs nphs avruv d\j/tiia)(ias (kuvoi. t^k xP^'if 

[ajTfiVnlTO, 56(1' <> AvK6(j)pa>ii eVi To Tuv Tol)(OV di<ipv^al KaTrj7T[fix6]n, p-IKCTi [twp] (T&)[/j].iroJi/ [ 

oJ/ioiMi T([. . . (ii) . . . .Jt^oi ovk iif (V<i[p]u|f Ton Tolxov. CTo[6]fi/ yap avBpoinm [/xJrySfi' Karenei- 
y6[ti.\(ms dXX' e;(a)i' tI/v [e'jiotxri'ai' xai Ta Trap' fKfiVijr flBevm xni to Trap' aiiToC Xe'yfti/ [kIo! . . . 
(1. 55) KOI To[{iTa ovSi]7ro6' 6 Xp[(pr;s ? t^ji/] o'lKiai/ uTr[frjr«' ?] Koi p!]V (iSi;>'[aTo]u yf ci^fi» rd^iv to toc 
6tpaTTalvus avTijs Tvpos tovtov 8i.a(f>(pe<Tdai. tIs [y]ap av ovruii (yfn'jdtj dpaada S)(tt( rj ra wapa tovtou 
prjffivra ^ Tn Trap' €K(ivr)s npos tovtou jra[pa](T(a)7rijo'a( Trji i8i'a[s] ex^f"^ [ev]fKa ; Trpof ^Ififpos- Se] rjii i, 
Kii\hvvos. el? p.]h' yap . . . (iii) oTrep oi^Toi Tr[poi'5fi/?]ro. viv S' ((([fj^o]!/ fih' iapav Ka[ff] imep^o- 
\t)V <i(T5[f]i'a)£ 5iaK(ip(i\o'\'; TavT-qv it T\i]v T]7f i^ijid'as- p\f\\\(ivcrav KvpLei(\i\'j TifolXi) Trpo o(f>6a\ptuv 
av(\ap[iaiiov, pi) TiaBovTOi ti tovtov Tipapiav vnoirxixnv hv iifTf'Tr[pa]|^Hi'. ovkovv omSe i\{o)pvxSi]vai 
Tov T0i;i(O!/ vT!o TOVTOV jTidafon, ovTf (loiBei., )tafti7r[e]i) Xe'yei, TaXs 6epmT<uvais StaXeyeadm. Tlims] yap 
fVfKfv : [tI? TTpor] aiirov T[ai'r<if] 5iei'fx[d'l''ai f 6fi (?)], ov t/)iXo[</)po!'e'aTfpoi/ ?] 81} Tijs [^ecriTnivrjs ?] 
77po(r<p€^pop(vqs ai*Jra> . . . 

' That he dug through the wall for the sake of intercouise with the woman is not at all 
credible. For the accuser has not shown either that he quarrelled with the persons who 
were in his service and readily submitted to any of his orders, or that owing to an altercation 
with him they renounced their intimacy, in consequence of which Lycophron was reduced 
to digging througii the wall, since the servants were no longer . . . 

... he would not have dug through the wall. For why should a man, who was 
not in straits, but in a position both to get news from her and to send messages from 
himself, . . .? 

. . . and Chremes never forbade him the house (.?). Moreover that her maids quarrelled 
with him was as good as impossible. For which of them could have become so bold 
as to pass over in silence either his messages to her or her messages to him for the sake of 
private enmity .' The danger was close at hand ; for . . . But, as it was, they saw that he 
was in an excessively weak state, while she who was about to become the owner of the 
house was kept before their eyes, for fear that if anything happened to him they would 
suffer punishment for their revenge. It is therefore incredible that Lycophron dug 
through the wall, and he was not in the habit, as stated by the accuser, of conversing 
with the maidservants. Why should he have done so .' What need was there for them to 
quarrel with him when, their mistress being on quite familiar terms with him, they . . . ? ' 

Fr. 5. 212 TiViK ovv T«p[T;]pio(r xp1'''''H-f['-'''^] tovtovs K(\(i[(i\ KnTaSiMiffii' ; x[pvH"]', i^n 
At'a, Tai[f TMi/J Ki;5€a-rajr p[apTi;]piais 'Ama-x(T[ov] Ka'i i)enpi>rirrT[ov Kai] Kphuivos, as KuX[aif] fx"" ("Ttv, 
u> <i[c]8per Si/cnorai', p\Ji\ jrape'p[y(i)9l e|f[TaVat. tijv [yalp oKifyv Kajnyyopi'far] (k to[. . . 

' On what proofs then does he rely when he bids them (sc. his fellow-citizens) give 


a verdict of guilty ? He relies forsooth on the evidence of his relatives by marriage, Anas- 
chetus, Theomnestus, and Criton, which it is your duty, gentlemen of the jury, to examine 
with special care. For the whole accusation (depends) on ... ' 

18. [n-ifljaroc: cf. 11. 94, 1 73, 236. 

19. (ffpot): cf. 11. 61-2. 

24. bfbriKa>K(v : the subject is o (taTrjyo^oi-, sc. Ariston ; cf. int. p. 76. 
26. aif'ipnxiiis-: cf Aeschin. Defah. kg. 176. rii/zi/nnxf"' is quoted from Hyperides by 
Antiatticista ap. Bekk. Anecd. 79. 12. 

30-1. KaT^^:{iix^\^■| : cf 1. 43. 

32. <riJ\ji\aiav : cf 1. 76 and int. p. 76. 

33. Tf[: or Tp[. The second letter may have been corrected. 
48. ] . oiif : c or p can be read instead of o. 

53-4. T>;XiKo[vTot .' ui\y : the reference might be to the age of dying husband (cf 11. 80-3 
and int.) ; but it seems more likely that he is the subject not of ]aTo in 1. 55 but of the verb 
in 1. 58, and that Lycophron is the subject as far as 1. 55. In that case the point of tijXi- 
Ko[vTOi would be that Lycophron was over 50 years of age when the trial took place, an 
argument used in his defence on the charge of adultery in Lycoplir. § 15. 

56-8. The restorations are highly conjectural, but o;^p[ looks like a proper nanu', and 
a mention of the iiusband, whose name is unknown, but who is called eVfiros in 1. So, is very 
appropriate here. tci[iitj;i is inadmissible in 1. 56. 

63. (yevr\6r\: this fomi, which is common in tlie third century b. c, occurs in the MSS. 
of Plato, Phileh. 62 d i^tytvijBri i^fiiv {(^lyiviff fjiiiv Stallbaum), and in two fragments of 
Philemon; cf. Lobeck, Phryn. 109, and int. p. 76. 

69. 7ro[pa](rioi)7ri)(rai : cf. int. p. 76. 

71—3. 7rpo[x]fi[por hi\^ rjv o kiv\_Bvvos : cf. Hyper. Epilaph. 17 "S '''• K-i^vhwiimv [7rp]o;^eipci)f. 

73. «? \i\(v yap: fifv is required to balance wv & in 1. 80, but ma}- have come in 1. 76. 

76. (T<i[iJLaTu: cf 1. 32. 

77—9. ]TTeiv is perhaps Siopv]tt(li' (cf 11. 14, 30, 92) and iK-yiji' might be S(op]tyi;i/ or 
St<i>p]vyr)v, though neither form is classical, the best MSS. in Dem. vii. 40 having dtopvx'i- But 
77[poii6f j']to, if that is the right restoration, does not fit in very well with a reference to digging 
through the wall, odtoi are the awpara. 

80. e/t[f ]ii(o V : cf 11. 56-8, n. The first husband of the woman is similarly alluded to 

in Lycophr. xlvi tVfJiS^ iTi\KivTr]a(v tVjfii'or and xKii fVfii'os [(tuorjo-ai' t:]v yvraJiKu e^] avTiiv 

ica7aA«'[Xoi7rf]f. /nfv aheady projects for some distance into the margin, and there is no room 
for [av after it, if av fXap^avov be read in 1. 87 ; cf. n. ad loc. 

82. flff^feli/coy hiaKii.pi\\o\v \ cf. Lycophy. § 17 o'^op'^'? diaKeipevovs. 

86—8. npo o(l)6a'\po)V aveXapfiavov : cf. Epitaph, 17 Trpo oCpSaXpoiV 6pu>p£va avTois ra fietwi, 

and Polyb. ii. 35 Xap^uvwv Tipo o<l>6a\pu)v ro irnpitho^ov rwr xdre yfvopcvwv. There seems to be 
no instance of tiuaXaiM^dvew with -n-po urj)6aXpwv, but with the division av (\apl3avov it is necessary 
to suppose the omission of av in I. 80. 

97. SiaXfycadai : cf int. p. 77. 

98. The supposed stop after (v(K(v might be the beginning of r. For the supplements 
in 11. 98-100 cf 11. 60-2. 

108. vr] Ai[a : cf 1. 216, Deiiioslh. i. 7, Euxcnip. 12, 14, 27. 

III. ufffXu^f : a favourite word of Hyperides, occurring i r times in his speeches. 

128. hiapp^x]v: cL Alhenog. 10, 16. 

159-62. It is very doubtful whether Fr. 14, containing the supposed ends of these 
lines, is rightly placed here, for the colour of it is different, especially on the verso (cf int. 
p. 74), and at a junction with the upper margin of Fr. 2, which becomes necessary, the 


fibres of the recto do not harmonize very well, m \i\ia6\ov SiKolfoiTts is too sliorl. «i/j[at is 
possible, and ou may be the negative. 

170-1. Fr. 3 seems to be rightly placetl here. ku6 v\%f^)[iu\r]ii is not unlikely in 1. i 7 i ; 
cf. 1. 81. 

198. This line was probably the last of the column, which is already slightly longer 
than usual (40 lines compared 10 39 in Fr. i). 

199-200. Cf. 11. 170-1, n. 

201-4. F'"- 4 almost certainly belongs to 11. 224-7. 

208. Ti,\i(vm : the last two letters are very doubtful ; but cf. 1. 205. Ti<^fvi)v cannot be 

218-20. The very rare name \\vaax<^^oi occurs also in C. I. A. ii. 804 Ba ('Ar. 
Aij/iioT-e'Aovr 'AXaieut) in a list of sureties in 340 e.g. for some triremes supplied to the 
Chalcidians, the preceding name being KptVwi' 'Kotvoxov KuSa^/ji-aif ur, who is also mentioned in 
C.I. A. ii. 807, and included among the KoKkiaToi Trnf n-oXtrwi' by Aeschin. Contra Timanh. 156. 
Probably these two persons are identical with 'Awi(r;(e7o$ and KpiVwi/ here. For efoiinr/o-Tos 

cf. Lyi'Oplir. § 2 to S' aflyvpwv 0eo[(Lii'^]oTw h[h<is<Tiv (sc. Ariston)' (K(\vos hk 'Ka/Mfiupwv dvSpuTioSu 
tiynnd^eij Koi 7Ttip€\(L wtrnen tois \i](TTaii CTTta LTitrpov, Kut diba)cn tovtw vnep iKOirrov zov tiv^paTToSov 
UfSoKnv rrji j]pefja^, ottcos up ^j adtiyaTos avKor^dvTTjs. 

220-1. /(aX[a>s] ex""'- cf. Dcmostll. viii. 22 KnXuf [fX^'" tok] "AjjiraXoi' [e'-y8ovi'(u 7-]i;i' ttoXij', 
f^ycophl'. § 1 1 *<"* TouTO TTo)? KoKois '^')((L CT€ ^ev . . . Tf/r KaTqyopuiv nou'j<raa6aL. 

222—3. n[i)] Tiapep[yu)s^ f|([ra](r(ii : cf. AthetlOg. 1 3 Touf T€ ra/Lious i^(Tu(eiv . . . TTiipfpya raXXd 
TTtivTa noiqadfifpou, 

228-31. It is not absolutely certain that these are the beginnings of lines. 
236. m6[tttJov : cf. 1. 18. 

283. [rjcoi Xn[pi7r]7ra)[i] : the traces of the supposed ttu are very slight and indecisive, but 
a mention of Charippus, to whom Dioxippus gave his sister in second marriage, and who 
figures largely in the charges discussed in Lycophr. §§ 3-7, is very appropriate ; cf int. p. 75. 
fy^ovTa or -npo tov tyhavvai. is to be supplied at the end of the preceding column ; cf Lycophr. 

§ 5 Kfxi yap ovToi (sc. DioxippUs) i]Ko\ovOfl ^id to X'ip"*' ey^''^'"^^"* gvttjv. 

284. f](s [o]Xii[n7na>/ : it is not certain that any letter is missing in the lacuna after cjis, 
and the following vestiges would also suit ai[ or nT[ or possibly ta[, but Dio.xippus was 
victorious as a pancratiast at 01\mpia according to Plin. A'(7/. Hisi. xx.w. 139 and others. 
The date assigned to his victory by Foerster, Olymp. Sieger, no. 381, is 336 e.g., but there 
is no very definite evidence for fixing the year, except the fact that Dioxippus went to Asia 
with Alexander (Diod. xvii. loo-i), i.e. in 335 or 334, and died there, so that he cannot 
have been at Olympia after 336. The oration of Hyperides against Lycophron is generally 
assigned to 340 b. c, and if [o]Xt)[Mma!' is right the victory of Dioxippus was more probably 
in 340, or even 344, than in 336. 

286-7. o-T«i^ai'u)(j[o]i'ra : aT(cf)ava(T[a\vTa does not suit the size of the lacuna. 

288. The T of TEWS has either been corrected from i or else been inserted later. 

289. The letter before nep-nnvTn stems to have been o- or u with a stroke through it, and 
the vestige of the preceding letter rather suggests a or X, so that probably the scribe began 
to write qutwi or \vKo(f>povt, but corrected it. 

313-16. Cf. 11. 159-62, n. 

336-7. For K(i[daTiep Xfjyei cf 1. 95. 

427-36. These are perhaps the beginnmgs of lines; but if so, Sa projects into the mar- 
gin of 1. 433. 


1608. Aeschines Socraticus, Alcibiades. 

Fr. 4 i6 X 9-S cm. Late second century. 

Plate III (Fr. 4). 

The source of these scanty fragments of a dialogue between Socrates and 
Alcibiades, chiefly concerning the character of Themistocles, is shown to be the 
Alcibiades of Aeschines Socraticus by coincidences with two of the six e.\tant 
quotations from that lost dialogue. Aeschines was one of the most important 
followers of Socrates, being often placed by ancient critics next in rank to 
Plato and Xenophon. His reputation rested not so much on his own con- 
tributions to the development of his master's philosophy, which seem to have 
been inconsiderable, but on the elegance of his style, which is specially praised 
by Aristides and Hermogenes, and on the fidelity of his representation of 
Socrates, which even led to the accusation in antiquity that the master, not the 
disciple, was the author of the dialogues (Diog. Laert. Vita Aescliinis^ ii. 7). 
The recovery of new fragments of the Alcibiades is therefore a matter of some 
interest, especially in view of the current controversy initiated by Prof. Burnet 
concerning the historical character of the Platonic Socrates. 

The extant fragments of Aeschines' seven genuine dialogues have recently 
been collected and discussed by H. Krauss (Teubner, 191 1) and more fully by 
H. Dittmar (Pkilol. Untersuch. xxi. 1912). Much the longest is Fr. i (Krauss) 
of the Alcibiades from Aristides, orat. 46 (ii. 392 sqq., Dindorf) containing 
a panegyric upon Themistocles addressed to Alcibiades by Socrates, and 
concluding with a warning that even Themistocles' cttio-t?;;/?) was not strong 
enough to save him from disasters. Another passage in the same oration of 
Aristides (ii. 369) not only supplies a second fragment (small), which Krauss, 
following C. F. Hermann, assigns to a position immediately preceding Fr. i, 
but gives a general description of the context of Fr. i, from which it appears 
that Alcibiades was reduced to tears by the sense of his own inferiority to 
Themistocles. Before the end of the dialogue, which was put into the form 
of a narrative by Socrates, as is shown by the use of the first person in referring 
to him, Alcibiades seems to have left, and Frs. 3 and 4 (from Aristid. oral. 45) 
apparently belong to the conclusion of the dialogue, being part of an explanation 
of Socrates' general point of view in relation to Alcibiades, addressed to an 
unknown third participator in the conversation. Frs. 5 and 6, from Priscianus 
and Athenaeus respectively, are unimportant ; but evidently the general drift of 
the whole dialogue was similar to that of the (Pseudo-)Platonic Alcibiades, a 
desire to curb the arrogance of Alcibiades. Aristides in fact contrasts the two 
dialogues, to the disadvantage of Plato. There are also apparent allusions to 


Aeschines' dialogue in Cic. 'J use. iii. 77 and Augustin, Dc civit. dci, xiv. S ; 
cf. Uittmar's Fr. 10, and pp. 99-103 of his edition. These indicate that Socrates 
showed Alcibiades, who thought him.self beaUis (iibaiixwn), that he was really 
stulliis (aixaOijs), and as such miser {aOXioi), with the result that Alcibiades 
entreated Socrates to free him from turpitudo {ai<TyjmTr\i) and teach him virtus 

Of the 19 (originally 25) fragments of the papyrus only six arc large 
enough to be of any value, and the longest continuous passage is less than 
20 lines (11. 34-52). Fr. 5 (11. 77-87) contains after parts of 5 new lines 
Krauss's Fr. 2, immediately followed, as he had correctly surmised, by the 
beginning of his Fr. i. This is continued after a gap in Frs. 6 and 7, the latter 
fragment containing the bottoms of two columns. Since the extent of the 
missing portion of Fr. 7. ii is known to have been approximately 19 lines, there 
were about 30 lines in a column, and probably Fr. 5, of which the upper margin 
is broken off, is from the top of a column ; for Frs. ,5, 6, and 7. i together account 
for 30 lines. With regard to the position of the other fragments, none of them 
belongs to the four columns immediately following Fr. 7. ii, all of which must 
have been occupied by the remainder of the extant panegyric on Themistocles, 
and internal evidence indicates that at any rate Frs. i, 2, and 4 preceded Frs. 5-7. 
Fr. I is placed in that position because the reference to Themistocles in 1. 3 may 
be the first introduction of his name into the discussion, which continues to be 
occupied with him in Frs. 4-7. Socrates seems to have asked a question 
reflecting on his interlocutor's (presumably Alcibiades') relations to his parents, 
adducing as a parallel the bad relations of Themistocles to his parents — a remark 
which draws a protest from Alcibiades (11. 1-6). The ne.xt question is concerned 
with a different subject, whether people are first hovitikoi and IttttlkoI. or the 
opposite, the second alternative being naturally adopted by Alcibiades (11. 7-15), 
at which point the fragment ceases to be intelligible. The story that Themistocles 
had been disinherited by his father, which is mentioned by Plutarch and other 
writers (cf. 11. ^^-g, n.), had in any case been alluded to by Socrates before Fr. 4, 
in which Alcibiades is definitely stated to be the other speaker (1. 50) ; for in 
11. 36-4S the latter expressed his surprise at the supposed disinheritance, and 
vigorously condemned the character of Themistocles implied by such an incident. 
There is an apparent connexion between this speech of Alcibiades and the 
reference at the beginning of Socrates' panegyric on Themistocles (11. <S'5-7) 
to Alcibiades' boldness in criticizing that statesman ; but Frs. 5-7 cannot be 
combined with the remains of Fr. 4. ii, so that at least one column intervened 
between Fr. 4. i and Frs. 5-7, though the gap is not likely to be wide. The 
next question of Socrates (11. 48 sqq.) is incompletely preserved and somewhat 


obscure, as is the point of his remark in 11. 34-6, which preceded the outburst 
of Alcibiades and mentions Apollodorus' defence tov (f^avi^ov. This Apollodorus 
is presumably the inseparable companion of Socrates who appears as the narrator 
in Plato's Symposium, and he seems to have taken part in the conversation in 
Aeschines' dialogue. Though there is no reason to assign any of the remarks 
in the extant portion of 1608 to Apollodorus, the two remarks from the end 
of the dialogue (Frs. 3 and 4 Krauss ; cf. p. 88) may well have been addressed 
to him : Anytus has been suggested there, but as a mere guess. The position 
of Fr. % is more doubtful, since there is no apparent reference in it to 
Themistocles ; but there seems to be a connexion between aTrojXoyias in 1. 28 
and o.itoKoyiicjQo.1 in 1. 31^), so that Fr. a is likely to have preceded Fr. 4 
with no very great interval. The first 5 lines of Fr. 5 apparently belong 
not to a speech but, like the next 3, to a piece of narrative: Alcibiades, 
who is meant by avTov in 1. 8a, is probably also indicated by aurw in 1. 79. Lines 
82-136 correspond to Krauss's Fr. 3 and part of i. Here there are some small 
variations between 1608 and the MSS. of Aristides, whose quotations do not 
seem to be exact. In 11. 130-3, where the MSS. are corrupt, 1608 is incom- 
pletely preserved, but does not seem to have been right ; cf. n. ad loc. The 
papyrus as a whole is too short to prove much ; but such glimpses of Aeschines' 
style as it affords indicate a close resemblance between his picture of Socrates 
and Plato's in the earlier dialogues, and so far as they go rather support 
Prof. Burnet's view that Plato was there giving a true representation of Socrates' 

1608 was found with 841-4, 1606-7, &c. The handwriting is a good-sized 
elegant uncial of the sloping oval type, with a tendency to exaggerate the size 
of a and V. It is a somewhat later specimen of this type than 24 (Demosthenes, 
TTiJooifxia bijixifyopLKo. : Part i, Plate vii) and 665 (History of Sicily : Part iv, 
Plate i), but earlier than e.g. 223 (Homer E: Part ii, Plate i) and Schubart, 
Pa^. Graecac, 19 b (Hesiod, Catalogue), and probably belongs to the latter half 
of the second centurj-. Iota adscript was generally written. Changes of speaker 
are indicated (perhaps not consistently) by double dots with or without para- 
graphi, and two kinds of stops, a high and a low point, are employed, besides 
occasional diaereses over initial i and v. A mark of elision in 1. ,",3 seems to be 
due to the original scribe, but an accent and breathing in 1. 37 are probably 
by the (contemporary) corrector, who has altered mistakes in 11. 10, 37 (?), and 
43. A critical mark against 1. 138 probably refers to a lost marginal note. The 
scribe seems to have been rather prone to omissions ; cf. 11. lo and 48-50. The 
fragments are or may be from the middles of columns, except where it is stated 


Fr. 2. 


Fr. I. 

. [ TTipi TOVi 

(TfavTov yo!'[€ay y«ye ? 
vqadai. otos wep [0 0e 
fiicrroKXrjs Xeyfrai [ne 
5 pi Toiiy eaiToi' yo[j/eay ; 

Tey : 7r[o]Tepo»' ^6 5o;c€i [ 
aot To[ii] avOpcoTTOL^ av\ay 
KaLo\y\ tivai ap.ov\crovs 


10 TT0Te\_p6\v r} pov(riKo[vs yi 

pea[da]i- kul 7ror€po[r a 
<pi[TnTovs] j; i7r7ri/co[i'y : a 
i'ay[Kaio]i' poi SoKfi [ 
afioy[aovs] npoTtpov K[ai 
15 a^i7r[7ro!;y :] ovKo\yy . . . 

[•]?X[ I'/" ^[- • • • 

[ ]7raj'[ 

Fr. 4. Col. i. Plate iii. 

[ ]V[ 

KoXoDS Se Ka.[i] A7To\[\o 
35 Saipos vmp Tov <pai/\\ov 
anoXoyeia-Oai ; aXX eKf[i 
uo i\ S OS eyco ovk av (oprj\i' 
TOV QepidTOKXta vn\o Fr. 4. Col. ii. 

TOV TraTpos anoKT]pv^[dt] 
40 far (pavXov yap Kai irop 
pcD ayoias rjKOVTa Ta 


ye ToiavTa- [[(uTjcrriy ety Si 
a(popas TOiavTas Kat e 
xQpas Tas fieyia-Tas 
45 Trpoy Tovs eavTov yoj'[e 
a? KaTidTT}- o Kai nai 

Plate iii. 

60 7«0-[ 



[ ]!'[ 

[. . . .]Tr]pLOVS [ 

20 [o]vSeT(povi Sif[ .... 

a- ovTi yap tovs [ 

[ovS]oTiovi' Sf[ 

Tija-Oai r]Tr([ 

[. .] cocTTe a[ 

25 [.] TCOI' StK[ Si 

aTrpa^acr6a[i e 

iraivuv ovt\j. 

I'e? Sia Tas TOi\avTas ano 
Xoyias anfyflcocrav av 
30 QpCOTTOlV ^e[ 


Fr. 3. 

32 ]vTa[ 

Frs. 5, 6, 7. Col. i. 

iV T019 [ 


avTcoL (iXi[ 

80 Kofieycoi t[ 

au afiapTTj[ 

yi'ovi ovv a\yTov eyco 

OTl ^r}XoTVTr\ws ex*' T^pos 

0ep.t(rTOKX[ea uttoi' e 
85 TreiSrj tov [&fpca-TOKXi 

ovs Plov e7n[Xa///3aj'60" 

\6\oLi iToXpT][aai aKi^jfai 
5 lines lost 

[(o S(OKpaTfi to] TOiavTya. 

\iiSevai : rjSr] o^yv 7ra)7r[o 


[{ai>) (vpojtro : ovTco St] fitKpof 
[i'evo]fj.iKa? (ivai rjv 8 e 
50 [yco a> A]\KiPca8r] yoviq{i)v 
\Sia^ ?]\r]dTji'at. coare tov 
\tTnTV)(_ ?]oi'7oy avOpaiTTov 
[ ] . TOVT (cr[Tt . . . .] 

[ ].?.[•••'•]•[•■• 

55 [ 12 letters ]'"a/i[.]i' 
[11 ,, ] Toof (pav 
[XoTarcoi^ ?] ecrTii> n Se 

[ ]v noXiv re 

end of col. 


65 [ 



70 8[ 



75 [ 

end of col. 

95 [re (TOi iiie\r]cr[f.v otl Tav[ 
[t?js t?;? xcoyojay Tocraii[ 
[T7;y ovar]s oaJTjc o 77X(o[y 
[TTopiverai i]] KaX€iT[ai 
[Aaia (IS ai'Tjp apytl : Tr]a. 

100 [VV fi(V OW ifjiTj O y ?]€ fJ.i 

\yas ^acrtXivs : oia]6a ovv 
[otl (Keiyos e(r]TpaTevaf 
[Sivpo Kai eTTi] AaK(Sai. 

{flOVlOVS 7]yOv\jJ.iV09 (L 

105 [tovtco tco 7roX]€6 Kara 

[(TTpC^atTO pa]$lQ)9 TOVi 

end of col. 

Fr. 7. Col. ii. 
19 lines lost. 
126 [Tre^cof Kai\ ^prj ij.arco[v 

[ret Tcou EXXrjYcoy npay/j,[a 
[ra TToXv eXefjn-ero ra Se 
[/JacTiAejoay 7rpoet)(^iv aX[ 
130 A [r;(5]€t OTi fL fj.r] avTOVi t[o ? 
^ovX[iv](adai (Keu'os [ve 
piea-T[ai] xa ye aXXa ai'[Toi' 
Toaavra oura to fLey[e6os 
o[v]S[(]i' jJ-iya e/xeXAej/ [co 
135 (pfXrjaetf Kai tovto {[yj/co 
K(i apa OTL OTTOTepcuv \av 
end of col. 

Fr. 11. 

Fr. 12 



jj^. Kai To\_ 


60 ]iiT<Bi a5[ 




(So. [ 

Fr. 8. 


? A 


Ct)(7 . [ 

145 !''?[ 

end of col. 

Vr. 13 

fiO /cai[ 



Fr. 9. 

o-ay . [ 
Tpi pa.[ 
50 aAA[ 

y"-p. hJ  [ 

Fr. 10. 


o) 5'<i)K/3]aTey o[ 
]ra). [ 

Fr. 14. 


Fr. 15. 

Fr. 16. 

Fr. 17. 

Fr. 18. 

Fr. 19 

top of col. 

top of col. 

1 7 6 7rX[ 

178 ]ai[ 

.80 ]..[ 

172 ]ov6i[ 





]e Toiav[T 

175 r(o[ 

1-6. Probably, as Prof. Burnet, to whom we are indebted for several suggestions in 
the interpretation of 1608, remarks, Socrates asked ' Would you be willing to have behaved 
to your parents as Themistocles is said to have behaved to his ? ' Alcibiades replies ' Hush, 
Socrates '. 

7-15. 'Do you think that men have to be unmusical before they are musical, and 
unskilled in riding before they are skilled .' — I think that they must first be unmusical and 
unskilled in riding.' For afiova-ot in conjunction with /ic^otttoi cf. Plato, Rep. 335c. Burnet 
thinlvS that this was part of an argument intended to show that'Themistocles did not achieve 
what he did (^vo-ei (which Alcibiades considered sufficient for himself). Since Themistocles 
was so unsatisfactory in his youth, he must have become great and acquired eVio-nJ/ii; by care 
and practice. 

16. [.]ox[ : or [a]px[. 

1 9. Perhaps [SiKao-jriypiou f[. 

28. Toi[aKTaf oTTojXoyiar : cf. 1. 36 and int. 

34-51. '. . . and Apollodorus also to make a good defence on behalf of the mean. 
— But, he replied, there is this point ; I should not have thought that Themistocles was dis- 
inherited by his»father ; for such conduct betokens a mean character and reaches the height 
of folly, when a person is involved in such quarrels and in the most violent enmity with his 
parents, which even a child would find a way of avoiding. — Did you think it so small- 
minded, Alcibiades, said I, to be filled with hatred of one's parents that . . . ' 

34-5. A7roX[Xo]Swpos- : cf. int. No orator of this name who was contemporary with 
Socrates is known, tou <pai\Kov can be masculine or neuter. As Burnet remarks, Alcibiades 
may have been relying on his natural gifts, so that the question of koXKos arose. Apollodorus 
may well have championed the cause of ' the ugly' (e.g. Socrates) ; for he certainly stands 
for the more cynical aspect of Socraticism, as appears from the beginning of the Symposium. 

36. Of the double dots after oTroXoyfio-^ai only the upper is preserved. 

aW iK(\i\m : Burnet compares Hippias maior 283 d liAX' eWii/o, fiwv 11,) AnxeSai- 

fioifioi ktX. 

37. Tj : the first hand perhaps wrote 1. 

38—9. Cf. int. and Plut. IV/. Themist. Z a hk tovtuiv f'^aprwuiv tnwi birjyrifuira TrXurroirts 
UT!OKiij)v^tv IjLiv vno Tov narpus uvtov . . . SoKti KaTf\|/-eCo-^ni, Aelian, ]'iU'. hist. \\. 12 ai!0Kj]f>v\6i\i 
vTTu ToC narpos, Nepos, Themist. \ a patre exheredatus est. 

40—1. noppai avotas rjKoiiTa : cf. PlatO, Euthyd. 294 e noppa aocplas rJKfts. 

48. [(av) evpo]iTo: this reading is not very satisfactory; but (vpono is preferable to 
evpoi, the active not being used wuth an infinitive in classical times, and there is a change of 
speaker before ovrai, so that [av fjupoi with the omission of double dots before odtw, though 
a possible reading, is open to still greater objections. 

50. •yoi'fa(i)i/ : yoKfajp is inadmissible. 

52. [firnvxloin-os was suggested by Burnet. 

55-9. The fragment containing these lines was originally separate, and is not quite 
certainly placed here. 

61. Probably avfdpoi[T7 : cf. 1. 52. 

77. This line is probably the top of the column ; cf. int. p. 89. 


82-4. ymv> . . . eejxLaTOK\{fa = Aeschin. Fr. 2 ; cf. int. The IMSS. of Aristides have 
frjXoTijn-ms exoiTo instead of oTi fr;XoTvir[Ms e;(fi, and before Qfy-uTTOKXia some of the deteriores 
insert t6v, which was certainly omitted in the papyrus. 

84-5. e],7eiS>; tou : from this point up to 1. 136 the papyrus corresponds to the beginning 
of Aeschin. Fr. i ; cf. int. After e'n-f iS.? the MSS. of Aristides insert roivvv, which is evidently 
due to looseness of quotation. 

93-8. These remains are on a separate fragment, and there is no external evidence for 
their being near the ends of lines. 

94-5- o]"" ww^o" ""^  o"" <^<"- wiiTTOTf MSS. 1608 may have omitted o-m. The < of 
ffieX7)(r]fi/ comes above the a of x'^p]"'' '" '■ 9^- 

97. 00-]^!': so the 'deteriores', followed by Dindorfand Hermann. AFT, which are 
considered the best MSS., have oo-w, which is adopted by Fischer, Krauss, and Dittmar. 
Carjv is, however, supported by Aristides xiv (i. 325, Dindorf) on-ep ydp ns €<pr] ™i/ Xoyon-oiwi' 

TTfpl TJjt 'Ao-i'at Xc'ymi' oaj^v 6 rjXins iropeveTai TaiiTrjs n<ia-r]s tipx'"'-'' "''^pa f""- 

100. y ?]« : om. MSS. 

105. woXjff : so MSS. TToXd Krauss and Dittmar, following Herodian, ii. 2, p. 696 is 
Trap' Ai'o-xiVr; tm ScBKpfiTtKw ToiVw ra TroXfi : TrdXr; Hermann, following Choeroboscus. 

130-2. el M avTov TO ^^vXev((T0iu (Keivois [eicftimi E) ■nffiUarai, ra ye aWa avrSiv {aiiTuv L) 
MSS. Dindorf: el pt) avrov tm liov\(Ce<r6al eKelvov . . . avTOi^ Hermann: fl /117 avTwv TM (3oi.X. 

e'Ke'woi . . . ai'Tov Reiskc : fl MT ahroi tm /SouX. eKelvos . . . avroi/ Krauss, Dittmar. Whether 1608 
had t[» or T[a>i and nv[Toi> or avWwv is uncertain ; but it apparently agreed with E in reading 
e'Keivoi (though eKeim,[s is just possible), and certainly differed from all the MSS. and editors 
in having avroii instead of airoC— a novelty which seems to be erroneous. 

134. (ijLeWei/ [oyypeXrjueiv : (u(^cXij(Tfi MSS. 

136. opci : om. MSS. 

138. For the critical mark cf int. p. 90. 

154-7. Fr. 10 resembles Fr. 7. ii in colour, but does not occur in the text of the 
missing portion of that column. 

159. The supposed low stop after v might be the lower of two dots markmg a change 
of speaker, in which case Kano[i is not improbable. 

162-5. This fragment is very likely to be placed above Fr. 9, but there is no actual 

1609. Philosophical Work (Eudorus ?). Metrological Fragment. 

8 X 10-2 cm. Second century. 

The recto of this papyrus contains 13 nearly complete Hnes from the 
middle of a column of a lost philosophical work, with a few letters from the 
preceding and following columns. It is written in a clear compact semiuncial 
hand of the second century, which somewhat resembles that of 410 (Part iii, 
Plate iv) and is not later than the reign of Alarcus Aurelius, more probably 
belonging to the reign of Trajan or Hadrian. A stroke in the middle of 1. 13 
indicates the beginning of a new section. The subject under discussion is dbmXa 
in mirrors, and the author, who alludes in 1. 13 to his commentary on the Timaeus 
of Plato, and objects in 11. 16 sqq. to the views of Democritus, Epicurus, and 
Empedoclcs, evidently belonged to the Academic school. The first commentator 


on Plato, was according to Proclus, I/i Tim. p. 24, Grantor of Soli in Cilicia, whose 
discussion of the Tiviaais is mentioned several times by Plutarch in his De 
aniiiiac procreaiione. But since Grantor was a contemporary of Epicurus and died 
before him, he is unsuitable as the author of the papyrus, in which Epicurus is 
ranked with Democritus and Empcdocles. Another philosopher of the Academic 
school, also mentioned by Plutarch, op. cii., in connexion with the Tiniacus, is 
Eudorus of Alexandria, who flourished about 25 B. c. and is generally thought 
to have written a commentary on that dialogue, besides an encyclopaedic work 
upon philosophy in general and a treatise on Aristotle's Categories. The 
encyclopaedic work, of which a few fragments survive, is described by Stobaeus, 
Eel. ii. 46 as EiSwpou tov 'AAe^ai/S/jt'ois AKahr\\xiKOv (pLkoirotfiov hiaipecn'i tov kuto. 
<f>lXo(TO(f>Lav \6yov, j3iji\L0ii q^iokti^toi' ii' w iiaaai' iTre^eXijiKvde TT;)0/i/\j;/^ariKt5s" rijv 
fTTtoT^jUT/i'. It was used extensively by Arius Didymus of Alexandria, a Stoic 
philosopher with eclectic tendencies, and seems to have been a work of some 
importance. The account of it given by Zeller, Gesch. d.griech. P kilos, i. 6 12, who 
considers that it collected the answers of the chief writers on the main problems of 
philosophy, is quite in harmony with the papyrus. A difficulty with regard to 
the attribution of 1609 to Eudorus, who naturally wrote in Attic, arises from 
the occurrence of an Ionic form, ■nipuowa's, in 1. 31. The context there, however, 
and the occurrence elsewhere of several non-Ionic forms (ovv, tuvtoov, 'Eju7i-«8okA>;s) 
indicate that the author was in this case using Empedocles' language, though 
■TTepKovtTai cannot itself have occurred in he.xameters. 

On the verso in a different and larger semiuncial hand, which is not earlier 
than A. D. 150 and may even be later than 200, are the ends of 11 lines from the 
middle of a column of metrological tables, similar to e.g. 9. verso and 669. 
Some abbreviations and the usual symbols for drachma (1. 31) and ^ (1. 36) occur. 
The amount lost at the beginnings of lines is uncertain, but seems to be 
considerable in most, if not all, cases, and not much can be gleaned from the 
fragment. As far as 1. 37 it is concerned with liquid measures, especially in 
relation to the cyathus, weights being expressed in drachmae ; the last 2^ lines 
deal with the mina and its subdivisions. The Koyx'/, ^n uncommon measure, is 
mentioned in 1. 30 with a novel weight assigned to it. Details are discussed in 
the commentary. 


Gol. i. Col. ii. Col. iii. 

SoKT] Se iK(i (pa[ii']ea6ai ov 
10 yap in tKHvov tov Karonrpov 
oparai aXX 7; avaKXaais uri 


701' OpCOl'TUx TTfpi jliV OVf 
. . . TOVTCOV iV TOiy €£? TOV Tl 

]770 fiaiov e^pJ'jTai ov S(i Se (i 

]y[o]vy 15 SoiXoi' toiovtov aKovew 01 . . 

'\vTav ov TO Kara A-qfioKpnou ?; Em t[ 

]«ei' KOVpOV t] cos EfiTViSoKXTJS [ 

5 ] . II' anoppoa^ (pair] av annvaL t[ 

]rij' ano eKacnov rcov K[a]T077rp£ 25 ([ 

Ml . 20 ^ofiiUCDf Kai t[ ([ 

]t_J7 nepKovaav [ 

' (if?) . . . and it (ihe image) seem to appear tliere. For it is not seen on thai mirror, 
but the reflexion to the person seeing (is seen). This, however, has been discussed in my 
commentary on tlie Timaeus. An image ought not to be described as it is in the systems 
of Democritus or Epicurus, or as Empedocles would say that emanations come off from 
each of the objects shown in the mirror and . . . surviving . . . ' 

12. opaPTa : V is practically certain and the very faint traces of the two preceding letters 
suit pm, but joining o is a descending stroke which is superfluous and seems to be merel)' 
a ligature. The stroke after opmvra is a mark of punctuation. 

13. (IS TOU Ti/ioiov : i. e. in connexion with 71b o'wv iv KdTonrpif tf^^opevw tCttovs Kn't KunSfii; 
(ISaiXa irapej^ovTi : cf. 7 2 C. 

14. Sft : €1 is very cramped, and the 1 was probably omitted originall)'. 

16. For Democritus' theory of fiSmXa cf. Se.xt. Math. ix. 19 Ar]p6KpiT0i 6e e'iSaXd nva 
(fitjaiv t'pTTfXii^fLf iirCpioTToit ktX. Eplcurus' vicw s are e-xjiressed in his Epist. i ap. Diog. Laert. 
X. 46 sqq. 

i8. For Empedocles' views on (ijroppoai cf. Ritlerand Preller, His/, p/iil. Grate §§ 166 h, 

177 1j- ^ 

19. /cfiiyo7rTpifoyii6i;u)i' is passive ; cf. Plot. Diplat.philos. 894 f KarnvriKph hf. TOV KaTon- 

Tpi'focTof auTrjv (sc. rJXinicij!' TTfpKpeyyfiav) uiTTepoi. The middle is the form commonl}' used. 
21. TrepKoviTiii : cf. int. p. 95. 


27 ]ai[. . .] KOt[ad{ ) . . 

] KOiaO{ ) e . [.]y 
]croi' Kai j; fity[a] 
30 fA?7 ] Koi>xv V /^e/ia] 

[Xt] i^ ?]ei S "; r] Se nr^ 

\opa.L il<TLV St o^ 

] ovv fifya Kota6(ov ?) 

TO S(] filKpOt' KoiaBov 


35 . ] oySoov fiepoi 

]' a S '; Mi'a [[• •]] 
[€^e( fo (7 S' pfiS 1] Si [o 

[5> J? ? ]«.'«[• 

27. rai[afl( ) : Ki'n^os is tlius misspelled throughout, a circumstance which raises a doubt 
whether some other forms are correct. The cyathus was regularly A of a kotvXt], but of 
varying weights and subdivisions. 

29. ]iToi/ : or ]foi'. 

29-31. The doubtful y of ^fy[(i Xi; might be v in both 1. 29 and 1. 30, bu in neither 
place is fifi\[Kpci admissible. The restoration i; nev Koyxv n fify[o|\T; (x]ft would suit 11. 34-5, 
where oydoov iicpas might follow immediately after K.ma6ov, but 11. 31—2 do not seem to be 
concerned with the niK^a Koyxi, and, since the break along the left side is practically vertical, 
it would be necessary to suppose that the beginning of 1. 31 projected by several letters 
beyond 11. 30 and 35, while it is very difficult to restore the other lines, especially 11. 32-4, 
on the hypothesis of a short lacuna or no lacuna at all at the beginnings. The /(dy;^;; occurs 
together with fiiyxv XWM'* as a medicinal measure in Hippocrates (Hultsch, Metrol. Script. 
i. 75-6), and is equated by ncsychius and Photius to the xw"/' w'hich is treated variously 
as \, j^g, \. or J- of a cyathus. In the CLopatrac lahula (Hultsch, i. 235 ; cf. 256) the 
fityaXT) i^nyxn is equated to the !i^i<^a<\>nv and contains i^cyathi, weighing 15 drachmae, while 
the AnTToji/ Kayxn contains \ cyathus, weighing 5 dr. The papyrus evidently gives the 
weight of the ^eytiXi; Kuyxn as 18 dr.: the initial lacuna in 1. 31 may well have contained 
a statement of the relation of this Koy^'? to a cyathus. which presumably stood in the ratio 
of I : i^ to it, especially as a cyathus of 12 drachmae is indicated by 11. 35-6 ; cf n. 

31. fx]*' • or aylet Or ttoi Ifi or ctrjrt. 

31-2. TfT is presumably Tfr(af)Ti/). but there is room for a letter between t and the 
vertical stroke which is supposed to represent the second r. reTapri] is not known as a liquid 
measure, but jirapTov ntpoi or T(rapTriix6pwv KmvXrjs occurs in Hippocrates (Hultsch, i. 75'), 
and TiTapTov is common in the sense of -J ^(o-tijs or (jtinriarius, i. e. \ kot-jXt; or 3 cyathi. 
The connexion of 1. 32 with the preceding line is obscure. Only natv is certain, \apai 
suggests ap^\opai, but ii^(j)opeis is the regular Greek form : !ipa]xpai is inadmissible, fi of 6e 
is fairly certain (no figure in the thousands or hundreds will suit), but the following letter, 
if f, is very cramped. 6', i. e. 8{paxpal), could be read ; but in 1. 31 the ordinary symbol for 
drachmae occurs and in 1. 36, where the figures seem to refer to drachmae, the preceding 
abbreviation was different. The figure "fiQ) probably refers to drachmae, and perhaps gives 
the weight of a kotv\j) ; cf. 1. 31. 

33-6. If the genitive K^yjadw in 1. 34 is right, these lines are clearly concerned with 
a subdivision of the cyathus, the smaller measure being apparently -| of it and weighing 
1 1 drachmae, which is in accordance with the weight ascribed to a pfyaXi} Koyxn in 1. 31, if 
the cyathus in 1609 is, as usual (cf 11. 29-31, n.), § '^^ ^ i^^y- ""JXI- The smallest measures 
for liquids were the x'lM' '"'VX'/ {('^uttmi'), nox^^apiov, pvcrTpioi' or \ia-Tpiov, pvaTpov, and napvov, 
but since the measure in question is neuter, the first two need not be discussed. The k^x- 
\iapiov is sometimes, e.g. in the Chop, lab., treated as weighing i drachma, i.e. J^ of a 
cyathus there, but -jL of the cyathus in 1609; elsewhere (e.g. Hultsch, i. 238. 7) it weighs 
3 ypappara, i.e. 2 drachmae. The terms piyn and /nKpou do not occur in connexion with it, 
but something like xoxXiapioi-] ow ptya Kota6[nv) [fKTov (or TtTapTon, if it weighed twice the 
HiKpoi') fi(pos TO fif] piKpav Koiadov [ — I oySooi' pepos can be restored in 11. 33-5, though how the 



lacunae in II. 35-6 were filled is in any case obscure. /ivo-Tpop (Hultsch, ii. 198-9) is some- 
what less suitable than Kox'Kidpiov. The peya fiiarpov has sometimes 2. sometimes 3 cyathi, 
but elsewhere is -^^ or ^V kotvKtj i. e. § or A cyathus, while the p.iKpuv pia-rpov is -jV or 
•gL KOTvXrj, i. e. ^ or A cyathus, which is not very close to | cyathus. The putrrpiov or 
'Ma-rpiov, which IS rarely mentioned, is the same as the piKpov piiarpov, and unlikely to be 
distinguished as piya and piKpov : but two kinds of Kupva are known, the liaaiKiKov, which 
weighed 4 drachmae in the Chop, tab., but elsewhere 7 drachmae (Hultsch, i. 243. 8), and 
the noj'Tiicul', which weighed i drachma (Hultsch, i. 243. 9), so that Kap\)ov\ is as good as 
KnxKiapwv\ in I. 33. olv is not very satisfactory, and the o is uncertain; but to •;a]pii(o)i' there 
is the objection that the tail of a /> ought to have been visible. In the absence of any known 
measure of which the smaller size was | cyathus and weighed i^ drachmae, the name to 
which ptya and piKpov refer and even the supposed connexion between 11. 34-6 remain 
doubtful. The stroke before the figures in 1. 36 is smaller than that after t(t in 1. 31 and 
may belong to a letter (e. g. 6 or p) above the line. 

36-8. Cf. the Chop. lab. (Hultsch, i. 234) >} UroXfuaiKri pia e^*' "{^)y{y^"') "J. (^/'"AM"'') 
ppo ... Tj Qvyyia e^fi Spa^pns r}. 

1610. EPHORU.S, xii (or xi). 

Frs. 12+13 15-2 X 91 cm. Late second or early third cen- 
tury. Plate III (Frs. I, 4-6, 15). 

These 60 fragments (originally about 70) of a lost historical work were found 
with 1611, 1619, &c. ; cf. 1619. int. They are mostly quite small, the longest 
containing less than 20 complete lines ; but owing to frequent correspondences 
with Diodorus xi. 59 sqq. a large amount of restoration is possible, and about 
100 lines in all are intelligible. In at least 16 cases the context of the fragments 
can be established, and in spite of their unpromising appearance they constitute 
a valuable find, especially since they deal with events in the Pentecontaiitia, 
which are for the most part outside the scope of Herodotus' histor}', and are only 
briefly sketched by Thucydides. 

The handwriting is a handsome upright uncial appro.ximating towards the 
biblical type, like 1234, 1365, and 1606, but more calligraphic than the first two. 
1012 and 1611 are also written in similar hands, but smaller. The date of the 
papyrus is not later than the early part of the third century and may go back to 
the latter part of the second, being appro.ximately A.D. 200. There are no 
lection-marks except the common angular signs for filling up short lines, para- 
graphi, and high stops. Pauses are sometimes also indicated by blank spaces. 
The only correction is the deletion of the iota adscript of aTrednjia-Kov in 1. 104: 
elsewhere (11. 10.5 and 198, but not in 1. 60?) iota adscript was generally written, 
and, so far as can be judged, the scribe was more careful than the average. The 
lines were short, ranging from 12-17 letters and usually consisting of 14 or 15. 
The height of the columns is uncertain. All the fragments conic or may come 

1610. EPHORUS, XII {OR XI) 99 

from the middles of columns, except where it is otherwise stated. There is no 
external evidence to show their order, and the chronology of the twenty years 
following the battle of Plataca is in many points uncertain. The arrangement of 
Frs. 1-16 in the te.xt is based on the order of the corresponding passages in 
Diodorus, and admits of little doubt. That Frs. 1-5 preceded 6 is clear from the 
reference to a change of subject in 1. 37. 

Of the three groups into which Frs. 1-16 fall the first, containing Frs. 15 
(11. 1-35; cf. 11. 36-7), is concerned with Themistocles. The most intelligible of 
them is Fr. 3, which comes from an estimate of his character and agrees very 
closely with a passage in Diod. xi. 59, no fewer than 13 consecutive words being 
identical ; cL p. io3. In Frs. 2 and 4 + 5 the division of lines is uncertain, and 
the resemblances to Diodorus are less marked, especially in the second half of 
Frs. 4 + 5, which does not correspond at all; but the points of agreement with 
Diodorus (cf. 11. 15-17 and 18 sqq., nn.) are sufficient to show that these frag- 
ments refer to other parts of the same chapter as Fr. 3, and are to be placed 
Fr. z shortly before Fr. 3, and Frs. 4 + 5 almost immediately after it. The small 
Frs. 26 and 38 also may belong to the character of Themistocles ; cf. II. 192-4 
and 237-9, nn. Fr. i, in which Themistocles is mentioned in 1. 7> presents 
greater difficulties, since not only are the ends of lines missing, but no direct 
parallelism to Diodorus is traceable. Probably 11. 7 sqq. refer to the reception of 
Themistocles by Xerxes at the Persian court, which in Diodorus precedes the 
character of Themistocles, and the allusion in 1. 8 to the statements of oL ixiv is 
to be connected with the ancient discrepancies among historians as to both the 
reigning king (Artaxerxes according to Thucydides and Charon, Xerxes accord- 
ing to Ephorus, Dinon, and others), and the circumstances attending Themi- 
stocles' arrival ; cf. 11. 7-12. n. That our author, like Diodorus but unlike 
Plutarch, favoured views opposed to that of Thucydides is clear from his general 
support of Diodorus, especially with regard to the accession of Artaxerxes (Frs. 
15—16) ; but the influence of Thucydides' language is apparent in 11. 11-12 and 
evident later in Fr. 6. It is also possible that Fr. 31 is to be connected with 
Thucydides' and Diodorus' accounts of the presents of land made by the Persian 
king to Themistocles (II. 213-14, n.), and Frs. 18 and 41 with Diodorus' account 
of the adventures of Themistocles in Persia. Fr. 41 in that case comes shortly 
before P^r. 1 (11. 246-8, n.), while Fr. 18, if the context has been rightly caught 
(11. 140-5, n.), may be placed between Frs. i and 2, preceding Fr. 31, if that 
fragment too refers to Themistocles. 

The second group, consisting of Frs. 6-14, is concerned with Cimon's opera- 
tions in the Aegean and Southern Mediterranean against the Persians, which are 
summarized by Thuc. i. 98-100 and more fully treated by Diodorus and Plutarch. 

H 3 


The end of a digression (i.e. the excursus upon the career of Themistocles) is 
announced in 11. 36-7, and in 1. 37 a new section begins, just as in Diodorus, with 
the departure of the Greek fleet from Byzantium. This town had evidently 
already passed out of the possession of Pausanias according to our author, as is 
also implied by Diodorus and Plutarch, but not by Thucydides, whose indcfinite- 
ness as to the date of Pausanias' expulsion (i. 131), coupled with a statement in 
Justin ix. I that Pausanias held the city for seven years, has led to a controversy 
whether the transference of Byzantium to the Athenians took place in 476 or 
470 B. C. ; cf. Busolt, Griech. Gcscli. iii. 96^ 1610 supports the earlier date. Our 
author's account of the capture ofEion on the Strymon is clearly borrowed with 
hardly any variation from Thucydides, Herodotus' story of the heroic defence of 
the Persian governor being ignored. Diodorus here adds a sentence about the 
Athenian projects, which is probably his own invention (cf. p. 103) ; but his 
description of the capture of Eion is apart from some unnecessary verbiage 
equally brief, being somewhat closer to our author than to Thucydides and 
having the same general construction of the sentence (11. 37-46, n.). Plutarch's 
account, based on Herodotus, is much longer. 

The next event recorded is the capture of Scyros (1. 46), which is briefly 
mentioned by Thucydides and Diodorus. Our author, however, seems to have, 
like Plutarch, devoted much more space to this episode, which led to one of 
Cimon's most popular exploits, the recovery of the bones of Theseus. After 1. 46 
Fr. 6 breaks off; but it is practically certain that Fr. 7, which mentions 'king 
Lyco[medes] ', is from an account of the Theseus story introduced, as by Plutarch, 
in connexion with Cimon's capture of Scyros (11. 49-51, n.), and probably Fr. 35, 
which mentions the Pelasgians, is to be placed between Frs. 7 and 8. It is signi- 
ficant that Diodorus' reference to the Pelasgians at Scyros is not only the sole 
mention of them in Book xi, but is also, except the mention of Byzantium, the one 
detail in his account of the operations at Eion and Scj'ros which is not ultimately 
traceable to Thucydides. 

After the capture of Scyros Thuc. i. 98. 3-4 proceeds to describe a war with 
Carystus in Euboea and the revolt of Naxos before coming to the twofold battle 
of the Eurymedon by sea and land (i. loo. i). Diodorus on the other hand, 
ignoring the first two events, but mentioning Cimon's return to Athens in quest 
of reinforcements, narrates the operations in Caria which led up to a naval battle 
off the coast of Cyprus on the same day as the land-battle of the Eurymedon. 
The inherent improbability of Diodorus' account of the double victorj', especially 
on account of the distance of Cyprus from the PZurymcdon and the night-attack, 
which is a favourite stratagem in Diodorus' battles, has been generally recognized 
and ascribed to his use of P^phorus ; cf. e.g. Busolt, iii. 146''. Our author's 

T610. EPHORUS, XII {OR XI) lor 

account evidently agreed closely with that of Diodorus, but probably narrated 
some events omitted by him ; cf. Fr. 39 for a possible reference to the Euboean 
war. Fr. 8 is with the exception of a couple of words and a difference of order 
identical with a passage in Diodorus' description of the Carian operations, while 
Frs. 9 + 10. i + 53, which narrate the sea-fight off Cyprus, are als(5 couched in very 
similar language. The numbers of the ships on both sides taking part in the 
naval engagement agree exactly with the figures of Diodorus, the figure of the 
Persian ships being practically in accordance with that ascribed to Ephorus by 
Plutarch (350 Ephorus ; 340 1610 and Diodorus ; Phanodemus' figure, 600, is an 
obvious exaggeration) ; but the number of ships captured by Cimon is stated to 
have been 100, as in the metrical inscription which is quoted (no doubt from 
Ephorus) by Diodorus and is perhaps represented by Fr. 41S (cf. p. 102), and in 
Lycurgus and Aristodemus, whereas Diodorus himself gives the number as ' more 
than 100 ', being perhaps influenced by the different figure mentioned by Thucy- 
dides (11. 62-76, n.). A detail omitted by Diodorus, the capture of a Persian 
admiral, is recorded in 11. 75 sqq., and the remains of Fr. 10. ii do not clearly 
correspond to any passage in Diodorus near this point, being too slight for certain 
reconstruction (cf. 11. 77-8, n. for a suggestion). Probably they belong to the 
early part of the description of the land-battle of the Eurymedon, and are to 
be placed not long before Fr. 11, which records the killing of the Persian general 
of the land-forces, Pherendates, in language practically identical with that of 
Diodorus. This coincidence is of great importance for deciding the question of 
the authorship of 1610, for from Plutarch it is known that Pherendates' name 
occurred in Ephorus, from whom Diodorus no doubt obtained it ; cf. p. 106. 
Frs. 12 + 13 continue the account of the land-battle, and since they constitute the 
longest connected piece, afford the best material for a comparison between our 
author and Diodorus. The general resemblance between them is very marked, 
11. 94-101 presenting only trifling variants (cf pp. 103-4; ; in 11. 101-12 1610 gives 
the more precise details about the destruction of the Persians, while Diodorus 
enlarges upon the absence of the moon and its effects; cf p. 124. The small 
Fr. 14 probably came immediately after Frs. 124- 13 (1. 114 can even belong to 
11. 112 or 113), and describes one of Cimon's tactics in the land-battle in terms 
similar to but not identical with those of Diodorus. Concerning the date of the 
battle of the Eurymedon, which has been ascribed to various years between 
470 and 465 I!. C. (autumn of 468 Busolt), the papyrus gives no new information 
beyond its general support of Diodorus, who assigns the engagement to 470, but 
is very confused throughout the Pentecontaetia in adapting his authority, 
Ephorus, to his own chronological system (cf p. no). It is noteworthy that 1610 
agrees with Diodorus and Frontinus as to the locality of the two battles, while 


Polyaenus, who has been sometimes supposed to represent Ephorus on this point 
more exactly than Diodorus (Basolt, /. c), inverts the scene, ascribing the land- 
battle to Cyprus, the sea-fight to the Eurymedon (11. 62-76, n.). The battle of 
the Eurymedon tended in ancient times to become confused with Cimon's later 
operations at Cyprus in connexion with the Egyptian expedition, and all details 
of later historians concerning it which are inconsistent with the statements of 
Thucydides are usually rejected. The small Fr. 48, if it belongs to the inscrip- 
tion about Cimon's victories which is quoted by Diodorus, is to be placed after 
Fr. 14 (11. 267-9, n.), and Fr. 28 also perhaps refers to the land-battle of the 
r^urymedon, coming shortly before Fr. 1 1 (11. 200-2, n.). 

After the battle of the Eurymedon Diodorus (xi. 63-8) proceeds to narrate 
first the revolt of the Helots and Messenians from Sparta, secondly the war 
between Argos and Mjxenae, and then turns to Sicilian affairs before reverting 
to Persian. The corresponding portion of 1610 is missing, unless Fr. 43 refers to 
the revolt of the Helots (11. 252-4, n.), and Fr. 41 to the Argive-Mycenean war 
(11. 246-8, n.). 

The third section of the papyrus consists of Frs. 15 and 16, which both refer 
to Persian affairs. Fr. 16, which relates to the plot of Artabanus to kill Xerxes 
and seize the throne, is almost verbally identical with Diodorus. The context of 
Fr. 15, which mentions Artaxerxes, is not quite certain owing to the incomplete- 
ness of the lines ; but most probably this fragment too is concerned with the plot 
of Artabanus, and immediately preceded Fr. 16, affording apparent points of 
contact with both Diodorus and Justin (11. 119 sqq., n.). 

With regard to Frs. 17-62, Fr. 53 has been assigned to 11. 67-9 (p. 101), and 
the most likely positions for Frs. 26 (p. 99), 35 (p. 100), and 48 (p. 102) have been 
indicated, while suggestions have also been made for the possible context of 
Frs. iS (p. 99), 28 (p. 102), 31 (p. 99), 38 (p. 99), 39 (p. loi), 41 (p. 99). 
and 43 (p. 102). Fr. 17 seems to belong to a geographical description 
of some place in connexion with a battle, being comparable e.g. to Diodorus' 
description of Plataea, but referring to a different place (II. 134-9, n.). The 
remaining fragments contain hardlj' any complete words, and no more instances 
of a clear correspondence with Diodorus have been detected. 

The relation of our author to Diodorus will be made clearer by the following 
table of agreements and contrasts. 

(i) Exact co)-rcspondciices of 1610 zvilJi Diodorus. 11. 18-22 {IkCivov ixiv vird 
T^s wo'AecdS rjTLiiaa-ixfi'ov t»ji' bi ttoKw 6ia ras fKeivov TTpd^fii) ; 30-1 {xaXeiratTaTiji! . . . 
-TTfios (Kfli'or) ; ff6-6l (iiapadaKaTTiMV . . . ttoKooi' ocrai jxiv (k t)}s" EAAa8os ijcrav 
aTTMKi<T[xii'ai -napaxpvi^n aw[ti:n(T(, with a slight alteration in the order ; 2'. ifif.) ; 
63-9 (Tb]v r[(Sj; riepo-wr aroKoh- Tr«/)t [tijv Kvirpor] .... [StaKOo-ilats 7r€i{T?jK0!Ta i:l/)[6s] 



Tjac^KoiTLai K\a\ Ti7Tap\aKovTa] with slight variations in the order ; :■. inf.) ; 848 
(t'ov fxiv cTpaTTiyuv . . . ['Pf/ierSdrt/lr aht\[(pLhoiiv . . . rod /3aa[i\iii>^ u' rfi] (tktii'ii) ; 
94-8 (a.7so TTfs rjTTHpuv TTJr . . . Tail' iroAe^iojc Trpos- To.'i raCs) ; 367-9 (perhaps from 
a metrical inscription of 8 lines quoted by Diodorus ; cf. p. 102). 

(z) Inexact correspondences uit/t Diodorns (additions of Diodoius other than 
verbal changes are in round brackets). 

Line. 1610. 

16-17 ■'"'^1 ^^ TOfrovrot[y 8ia r\Q>v ipyo>\i' 

23-5 TTJS \J.iyi(TTrps Tl/XT/S VTtO T&l' EAAl/i'Oi;' 

37-9 (To](f>[(i)TaT-qr Kal 8tKat]oTd[r7)i' 

. .yd[r]ij[r] K[al 
30 [yevopi^vq]v 
37 . . .1 T:apei[(l3}]p.ei' 
37^46 AdTjvaioi hi Kt/^coroy Tov MtAriaOou 

ns- 6e Toli epyoi.'i . . . ToaoijTOii 

(ro(Pa>TaTi]v koi iiti(iKirrTaTi]v 


Adrjvaioi (TTparriybv k\6p.ii'0i. Kipoii'a 

(TTpari^yovvTOi iKT:\(V(TavTfs eK Bv^avTiov Tor M. {koL hvvap.iv a^ioKoyov Tiapabuvres 
Hera tSiv a-vp-p-ayjuv 'Htdra Tr\v (ttI Srpt;- f^fTT(p.\j/av iiii t?/;' iTapa.\i,ov rijs 'Aaias 
jUW't Y\(p(To>v f'xojTaj!' flAoj' Kai |S/<y/5o]r, l3oi}0i]frovTa p.iv rais a-vp.p.a\ov(rcas nuAeaiv, 
i]V vrjco}' . . . ikivdipdicrovTa ht rai llepa-tKats' eVt <ppov- 

paii KaT^xof-^vas.) ovros be iiapaXafim' tov 
(TToKov (V }iv(ai'TL(ii Kal (so Reiske ; /cat iv 
Ev(. MSS. ; Kal (K Bv(. is suggested by 
the parallel in 1610) Kara-nktwas (ttI 
TToKiv Ti]V 6vopa(op4vr]v 'iliova, ravrtp- piv 
rifpirajr Karexovrmv fj^eipcucroTo, ^Kvpov be 
YliXaiTyuiv (voiKovvTcov Kal Ao\6i:(or e^e- 
■noALOfiKTjae Kal KTi(TTi]v 'Adrjvaiov Kara- 
(rrjjiTay KaTeK\ripov)(ifae ti}v ■)^<apav. 
yaav (K rjjs EAA. aTruK. ravTas 
Tor (TToA. roir O. Siar/n'/Seu' irepl tijv K. 

5iS-6o ex Tj/s EAAd6of ))(Tai' dwcuKicrjuerat 
63-6 t6]i' t[&v llfpa-Zv (TTo'Ao]y Tiepi frTjr 

KuTrpoy (TDji;r€Td[x0ai] 
66-7 8iaKOf7t]ais •<Tei'[r»;KOi'ra] 
69-75 TTapaTaxOfio'ai bi ito\vv \puvov 

TToAAds piv tS>v KU'bvvivovaiav j3apj3apL- 

biaK. Kal TTfVTijK. vaval 
yivop.ivov 6 aymvoi to-^upojj (xai roi;' 
(TTokiiiv ap.<poTfp(jov kapTTpQs ayoiviCoptviiiv 

Kmv vitav bi(<f>6(ip(v iKarbv 6' airoty av- to rt\iVTalov (vlkmv oi 'A0i]vaiOL Kal) 
bpa<Tiv (l\i TToAAds p.h' t&v fvavTCmv vavs bu<i)0iipav, 

(TrAeiovs) oe tS)v tKaTov avv ai/Toli toIs 
avbpaiTL iiKov 
5 avT&v T(or fiap/iapaiv (tov iTfpov) 


93 ^X'^P"''] 6t€reA[oi;j; o]vTes ret Tipos- avrovs aWorpCws ex'"'^''^'(') 

94 [too-jre voixiCoi'Tes bid kol vojjLiaavTfS 
96 ecpoboi' avToli ytyovlvai (TTKpopav eivai 
98-101 ((pivyoi' i77oA.o/x/3uro;'Tes (tvai (/)(.- ws' tt/ius (^tXias ftfxvyov 


IOI-12 o£ B)( 770AA0I /jiev vvo rSiv Kara- r?]^ §€ vvktos (oiio-ijs d(reA?ii'oii xat ctao- 

\ei(l>9ii>Tiiiv (Kfl <f)v\dKwv aTTf6vij(TK0i' iv Turiji) irvvijiawi rijv ayvoiav ttoKv ixa.i\\or 

TTj I'VKTi, TToAAot hi i^m'TH i]\l(tkovto av^irrdai Kal jxriCieva raA?;5es hwaadoL 

TTepiTTLTiToi'Tei Tots "EAA7;(Tii) 6ta T^v aTTO- Ibtiv. 610 kqi ttoAAoS (povov yeiiofxn'ov oia 

piav unov TpdiroirTO Kai tov [(]^tai<pviiSj tijv dra^iav t5>v ftap^iaptuv 
avTois f[T:i,iTi(T6vTa <j>6(3\ov 

114-18 restoration uncertain Cf. 11. 114-16, n. 

134-6 aiiTus KaTo[(TX(li' ti^v /SairtAetar (Kpwti' . .. ti}V jSaa. ds lavrm) jxiracrr^ja-ai 


12K-32 dvi]Koivov[To Ti)v ...,]. w TT/jos ai'aKuLVoia-ajxei'os bi rriv f-jj ij3ovki]v 7!po-i 

\tov ivvovxov\ M((?pi[8ar7);' Karal/coifii- M. tojj (vv. os ^jv KaTaKoip.i(TTip tov l-ia(T. 

[(TTrjV TOV j3a(Tl\(\uJS 

(3) Oviissions in Diodorus. 11. 7-14 (different accounts of Themistocles' 
reception by Xerxes) ; 15, 25-6, and 32-5 (sentences in the estimate of Themis- 
tocles) ; 47-51 and 228-30? (the episode of Cimon's recovery of the bones of 
Theseus) ; 57 {KaXovpivMv) ; 75-6 (capture of a Persian admiral) ; 87 {ovTa) ; 
119-22 and 125-7 (details of the plot of Artabanus). Besides these 11. 1-7, 
52-5, 77— *^3' Iii"i3> ^"d 134—9, all of which are incomplete and obscure, seem to 
belong to passages not corresponding to anything in Diodorus, as is also the case 
with many of the minor fragments. 

Where 1610 and Diodorus agree as to the sense, but express themselves 
differently, sometimes one, sometimes the other is longer ; but on the whole 
Diodorus in the chapters covered by 1610 is distinctly the shorter of the two, 
details and even whole episodes which occur in 1610 being absent in his work. 
We postpone the discussion of the few passages in which he is fuller than 1610, 
until the question of the authorship of the papyrus has been decided (cf. p. 111) ; 
for the present it is sufficient to point out that none of Diodorus' additional 
sentences or phrases contains anything striking or implies any real divergence 
from 1610, except perhaps in 1. 74 (rtXdovi rSir Uarui' for 1610's fNOTor with regard 
to the number of ships captured by Cimon off Cyprus). Beside the conspicuous 
points of agreement the differences between 1610 and Diodorus, apart from his 
omissions, in any case appear trivial. 

The remarkably close resemblance between our author and Diodorus must 

1610. EPHORUS, XII {OR XI) 105 

be explained in one of three ways. Either one of the two writers was copying 
the other, or they derived their common information from the same source, i. e. 
from the historian who is now always supposed to underlie Diodorus' account of 
the Pcntecontaijtia, Ephorus. Between these ahernatives the choice admits in 
our opinion of liardly any doubt. The agreements between 1610 and Diodorus, 
which sometimes amount to the identity of a wliole sentence and e.xtend over not 
only the narrative but moral reflexions upon the character of individuals, are too 
marked to be explained satisfactorily by the hypothesis of a common source ; 
and there is no historian among Ephorus' contemporaries and successors who has 
any particular claim to be regarded as the author of 1610. Theopompus, apart 
from the great antecedent improbability that he would slavishly copy Ephorus 
(or Ephorus liimj, dealt with the Pentecontactia in an excursus upon Athenian 
demagogues in Book x of the 'InAtTiTrtKa (Fr. 90 Grenfell-Hunt), whereas 1610 has 
all the appearance of belonging to a comprehensive history of Greece. The 
detailed description of the plot of Artabanus (Frs. 15-16), which is probably in 
part derived from Ctesias (11. 119 sqq., n.), does not at all suggest an ' krOii, and 
Phanodemus at any rate is excluded by his divergence from 1610 as to the size 
of the Persian fleet in the sea-fight oft' the Eurymedon or Cyprus (11. 62-76, n.). 
Callisthenes — apart from the fact that his histories primarily dealt with the fourth 
century )J.C. — is excluded by his disagreement with 1610 on the subject of the 
name of the Persian general of the land-forces in the battle of the Eurymedon 
(11. <S4-8, II.). Of the historians (other than Ephorus), who according to Plut. 
Tlionist. 27 (cf. 11. 7-12, n.) represented Themistocles as a suppliant to Xerxes, 
like 1610, Dinon and Heraclides wrote histories of Persia, not of Greece, 
Clitarchus an account of Alexander's Asiatic campaigns. Cratippus, whose 
claims required to be considered in connexion with the Helknica OxyrltyncJiia 
(842), wrote a continuation of Thucydides. 1610 might conceivably be the work 
of another historian of about the age of Diodorus, following Ephorus with equal 
fidelity ; but it is much more likely that the agreements between 1610 and 
Diodorus are due to the circumstance that one work was the immediate authority 
for the other. 

The hypothesis that 1610 is based upon Diodorus may safely be dismissed. 
The papyrus was written only about two centuries after him, and the view that 
it represents the work of a historian of the Roman period, who was copying 
Diodorus, is open to several objections. Of Diodorus himself there are no extant 
papyri and Plutarch is equally unrepresented. The circulation in Egypt of the 
works of the later Greek historians was evidently rather limited, and about 
A.D. 200 people still preferred the more famous writers (cf. p. no). The partial 
survival of Diodorus, who is never cited by heathen writers, though the title of 


his history was known to PHn\-, is due to the circumstance that his work happened 
to suit the Christians (Schwartz in Pauly-Wissowa, Realencycl. v. 664) ; and to 
suppose that he served as the main authority for another and still more 
elaborate history of Greece composed not later than A. D. 150 is to attribute to 
him an importance to which he has no claim. 12, a historical composition of the 
Roman period in Egypt, illustrates the kind of synchronistic Graeco-Roman 
annals which were utilized by Diodorus (cf. Schwartz, op. cit. v. 665), but bears 
no resemblance to 1610. A survey of the differences between our author's and 
Diodorus' accounts of the same events (cf. pp. 103-4) 's distinctly unfavourable 
to the hypothesis that 1610 is the later of the two. Thus in narrating the 
capture of Scyros our author is much more detailed, describing incidents which 
are ignored by Thucydides and Diodorus, but not by Plutarch. The new details 
in 1610 concerning the sea and land battles near the Eurymedon, though perhaps 
of no great historical value, at any rate indicate a serious historian of a higher 
calibre and distinctly better informed than Diodorus. There is every reason to 
suppose that our author was earlier, not later, than Diodorus, and the way is now 
clear for a discussion of the remaining hypothesis, that Diodorus was copying our 
author, who is no other than ]{phorus himself. 

The identification of our author with Ephorus is supported b)' many con- 
siderations. (1) Ephorus was a well-known and popular writer, extensively used 
by writers of the Roman period, so that his works would be expected to turn up 
in Egypt. 

(3) The most important argument of all is that 1610 coincides with Ephorus 
and Diodorus both as to the visit of Themistocles to Xerxes, not Artaxerxes 
(cf. p. 99), and the name of the Persian general Pherendates (11. 84-8, n.), while 
leio's and Diodorus' figure (340) of the ships in the Persian fleet in the sea-battle 
off Cyprus is practically identical with the figure (350) ascribed to Ephorus 
(11. 62-76, n.). The slight difference may well be due either to a corruption in 
the MSS. of Plutarch (i' for />), or to a rounding-off of I-Lphorus' figure by that 
writer. These three are the only e.xtant pieces of direct evidence concerning 
Ephorus' narrative of the events covered by the papyrus, and the coincidence 
with regard to Pherendates, whose name is a certain restoration in 1. 86, is 
particularly weighty. 

(3) The close relationship between 1610 and Diodorus, though this resem- 
blance often extends beyond the point which with the scanty available evidence 
could hitherto be proved as regards Ephorus and Diodorus, is in the main such 
as has been generally considered to exist between those two historians ; cf. pp. 105 
and 1 1 1-2 and Schwartz, op. cit. v. 679. 

(4) The general relation of 1610 to Plutarch, who has been thought (e.g. b\- 

1610. EPHORUS, XII {OR XI) 107 

Busolt) to have followed other historians, e.g. Theopompiis, Hcraclides, and 
Cailisthenes, more than Ephorus in dealing with the Pentccontactia, is also quite 
in keeping with what would be expected to be found in Ephorus. Particular 
statements of Plutarch with regard to Ephorus are verified (all three pieces 
of evidence discussed in (2) are obtained from Plutarch) ; but as a rule Plutarch 
preferred a different authority, though his account of Cimon's recovery of the 
bones of Theseus may have been obtained from 1610 (11. 49-51, n.). 

(5) The traces of connexion between 1610 and (i) Justin (11. 119 sqq., n.), 
who certainly used Ephorus, (2) Polyaenus, (3) Frontinus (11. 62-76, n.), and 
(4) Aristodemus (11. 7-12, 62-76, nn.), arc such as would be expected to occur, if 
Ephorus is the author. 

(6) The account of the capture of Eion in 1610 (11. 37-46, n.) is borrowed 
straight from Thucydides, whom Ephorus is supposed to have used. Elsewhere 
he differs conspicuously from Thucydides, as was known, with regard to two 
incidents which occur in 1610, the appeal of Themistocles to Xerxes and the sea- 
fight off Cyprus (11. 7-1 a and 62-76, nn.), an apparent indirect allusion being 
made to Thucydides' account of the former incident. 

(7) The arrangement of the narrative in 1610, in which events are evidently 
grouped not annalistically as in Thucydides, but rather according to subject, is in 
accordance with the definite statement of Diodorus v. i concerning the arrange- 
ment adopted by Ephorus (Kara yivo^ : cf. p. 110). 

(8) The disposition of our author to digress and moralize, which is illustrated 
by his excursus upon Themistocles, is quite in harmony with Polybius' reference 
(xii. 28) to Ephorus' fondness for naptKi-iaan'i and yvui^oKoyiai.. 

(9) The interest shown by our author in antiquarian lore, exemplified by 
the excursus on Theseus (p. 100), accords very well with Ephorus' known interest 
in that subject (cf. Schwartz, op. cit. vi. 13). 

(10) The prominence of the Athenians in 1610 is in keeping with the 
supposed sympathies of Ephorus (cf Schwartz, op. cit. vi. 14), though these have 
been disputed (cf. Walker, Hell. Oxy. 107). 

(ii) The historical arguments are to some extent reinforced by linguistic 
evidence, for there is a general similarity of style between 1610 and the extant 
fragments of Ephorus. Actual quotations of his words are very few. but there 
are occasional agreements in them with 1610 in points of diction (cf. 11. 26, 94-9, 
102-4, 1 14-16, nn.), though these arc not very striking. The careful avoidance 
of hiatus (cf. 11. 59-60), the monotonous frequency of antitheses, and a decided 
tendency to verbosity, especially in the reflexions upon Themistocles, accord very 
fairly with the judgements of ancient critics upon Ephorus' style ; cf. Cicero, 
Hortcns. Fr. 12 quid . . . Ephoro initials iiiveniri potest ? ; Brut. 204 Iciiissiinuvt 


Ephori ingeniiim ; Dio Chrys. xviii, p. 283 "E(^o/jos oe ttoAAi/z' \iiv laroftiav irapa- 
biho}(Tiv, TO bf vTTTioi' Kal avHixivov Trj<5 cmayytXia^ ctol ovk (inTijbeioi: The digression 
on Themistocles, if, as is practically certain, the whole of Diod. xi. 58. 4-59 was 
taken with very little change from our author, contains somewhat more rhetoric 
than would be expected to appear in Ephorus, and is nearer to Frs. aiy and 283 
(Grenfell-Hunt) of Theopompus, which also have a series of rhetorical questions, 
than to anything in Ephorus' extant fragments. But for reasons which have 
been given (p. 105) Theopompus is quite unsuitable as the author of 1610, and in 
spite of the well-known saying of Isocrates about his two illustrious pupils that 
Ephorus required the spur, Theopompus the bit, the two disciples of that master 
probably had many rhetorical devices in common. 

Our conclusion therefore is that at last there is a papyrus which, especially 
in view of its coincidences with fragments of Ephorus, and its close agreements 
with Diodorus, can be ascribed to Ephorus with overwhelming probability. 

The books of Ephorus' 'laropuu which dealt with the period round that 
which is covered by 1610 were x-xiii ; of. Schwartz, o/ vi. 5. Fr. 107 (Mliller) 
from Book x is concerned with Miltiadcs at Paros and belongs to the interval 
between Marathon and Salamis. A fragment from Schol. Aristid. p. 515. 23 
(Mullcr. FHG. iv. 642) refers to the fine of 50 talents imposed on Miltiades 
and paid by Cimon when a young man (Plut. Ciiiion 4), i. e. before the events 
recorded in 1610. The scholiast gives as his source "E^opos iv rf; wpton/, which is 
usually corrected to ivhiKaT->j. There is also a difficulty about the number of the 
book in Eph. Fr. 109 ; for his discussion of various opinions upon the causes of 
the rise of the Nile is ascribed by most MSS. of Theo Progyinn. to Book xi, but 
one MS. has ev t?} TrejuTrv-?; in the margin, and Joannes Lydus, in referring to the 
same discussion, attributes it t\\ tt/jcot)/, which has been usually corrected, as in 
the other case, to ivbeKaTij. Muller accepts ■nip.-uTi] as right on the reasonable, 
and in our opinion sufficient ground that Book v was geographical and is 
known to have been concerned with Asia and Libya ; but Schwartz (/. c.) accepts 
ivbiKari], suggesting (what does not seem very probable) that an excursus on 
Egypt may have occurred in connexion with the revolt of Inarus, which is 
narrated by Diodorus in the chapters immediately following those corresponding 
to Frs. 15-16 of 1610. After Fr. 109 there is no fragment of Ephorus which can 
be assigned with certainty to a particular event and book until Fr. 126 from 
Book xvii is reached. This records the death of Alcibiades and corresponds 
to Diod. xiv. II. Fr. no, however, a mention of a Sicilian island Tv^ia in 
Book xii, is doubtfully connected by Schwartz (I.e.) with the expulsion of 
Thrasybulus from Syracuse in about 466 B.C. (Diod. xi. 68), and Fr. 124, a 
mention of "EireAu in Sicily in Book xvi, is thought by him to refer probably 

1610. EPHORUS, XII {OR XI) 109 

to the early histoiy of Dionysius (cf. Diod. xiv. 9). It is therefore not clear to 
which book 1610 belonged ; but evidently xi or xii is the most suitable. 

The new discovery in any case adds fresh fuel to the controversy concerning 
the authorship of two other papyri from the same site, the Hcllcnica Oxyrlivnchia 
(842) and a fragment concerning the Orthagoridac in Sicyon (1365j. In our first 
edition of 842 we discussed the claims of Ephorus, Theopompus, and Cratippus 
to be regarded as the author, and eventually decided doubtfully in favour of 
Theopompus, a hypothesis which was advocated by E. Meyer and found con- 
siderable favour in Germany, but very little in this country. The claims of 
Cratippus were formerly advocated by Walker {KliovVn. 356-71) and are still 
supported by the latest editor of the Hc/l. Oxy., J. H. Lipsius. The case for 
Ephorus has been well .stated by Judeich (Rlieiii. Miis. 1911. 94-139), and more 
fully by Walker {Hell. Oxy. 191 2), whose able advocacy has gained many 
adherents. With regard to 1365 our view that Ephorus (or Aristotle?) might be 
the author has been disputed bj' M. Lenchantin de Gubernatis {A/ti Ace. Torino, 
li. 290-305), on the ground that the oracle mentioned by Diodorus referred to 
Andreas himself, implying that he was to be the first tyrant, whereas 1365 states 
that Andreas' son Orthagoras was the first tyrant. This objection, however, 
does not seem to us insuperable, for Diodorus' words are 6Vt liKvoiviois i^pijirer 1) 
Ylvdia eKaror err; ixaaTiyovoixijOtirdaL cwtoxk. eTrfpaiTi-jaui'Twir he avT&v tCs o raira 
TToujo-o))' TTciKiir a~eKpi9)j (1) av KaTairkevaavTfs irpoJrco yfyevijixivov vluv ciKovo'iocriv . . ., 
which points to the i;ioi- (Orthagoras) as the important person. 

The authorship of 842 is too large a question to be adequately rediscussed 
here, but the main bearings of the new find upon the problem, assuming that we 
are right in attributing 1610 to Ephorus, may be indicated. Firstly, the agree- 
ments between 842 and Diodorus, which could only be explained by his direct 
or indirect use of the author of 842, and which constituted the most solid 
argument in favour of the view that Ephorus was the writer in question (cf. Part v. 
^'^5~7 ; W'alker, o/>. eit. 50 sqq.), are less marked indeed than the correspondences 
of 1610 with Diodorus in Frs. 3, 8-1 1, 16, but are on much the same level as 
those in Frs. 4-6, 12 -I- 13, 15. Secondly, the relation of 842 to Plutarch and 
Justin is similar to that of 1610 to those authors. In both papyri the connexion 
with Plutarch is slight, but their influence upon Justin is traceable. Thirdly, 
the scale of the history in the two papyri is not dissimilar, when allowances are 
made for the comparative paucity of evidence for the more ancient period. 1610, 
though its account of the capture of Eion reproduces the brevity of Thucydides, 
not the details of Herodotus (cf. 11. 37-46, n.), was evidently on a large scale, 
being even more detailed than Diodorus, so far as can be judged. Hence the 
discovery of 1610 goes some way to remove the supposed difficulty (cf. Part v, 


I. c, and in answer to it Walker, op. cit. \2 sqq.) that Ephorus' history was less 
detailed than 842. Fourthly, while in 842 the narrative was arranged chrono- 
logically in the style of Thiicydides, in 1610 the arrangement bears no sign of 
being annalistic, and was evidently to a large extent according to subject ; 
cf p. 107. Here 1610 rather damages the position of Judeich, who [op. cit. no) 
minimized one of the chief difficulties in the attribution of 842 to Ephorus, the 
fact that according to Diodorus v. i Ephorus' history was arranged Kara yivos, 
and maintained that Ephorus did write more or less annalistically. Walker's 
position, on the other hand, is less affected, for he had acutely divined {op. cit. 30-1) 
from Diodorus' account of the Pentecontaetia that Ephorus' account of it was 
arranged according to subject, not annalistically, just as in fact 1610 shows it to 
have been with regard to two of the three incidents selected by Walker as 
evidence (Themistocles in Persia, and Cimon's operations up to the battle of the 
Eurymedon). Tin's divergence, however, between 1610 and 842 (which belongs 
to Book xviii, if it is by h-phorus) remains something of a difficulty in spite 
of Walker's arguments (op. cit. 33 sqq.) for the view that in the later books of 
Ephorus greater respect was paid to the annalistic method. Fifthly, speeches 
in the style of Thucydides do not occur in either papyrus, but each of them has 
at least one excursus (842 on the Boeotian constitution, 1610 on Themistocles ; 
that in 842. x on the character of an individual is too incomplete to be at all 
intelligible). Lastly, there arc rather more agreements in diction between 
1610 and 842 (cf. 15-17, 56-61, 73-4, 94-9, 101, 104, 131, 123, nn.) than 
between 1610 and the extant fragments of Ephorus (cf. p. 107), which owing to 
the length of 842 is not surprising, and the general style of 842 is not unlike 
that of 1610. 

With regard to 1365, the circumstance that the parallel account in a frag- 
ment of Diodorus breaks off just before the point at which the papyrus begins 
prevents us from knowing the extent of their resemblance ; but they combine in 
most respects remarkably well. The fondness for the genitive absolute and the 
repetition of the article with an adjective placed after a substantive, which were 
noted (Part xi. 107) as characteristics of 1365, do not appear in 1610, but the 
general style is not at all dissimilar. The wide range of the library to which 1610 
belonged and, to a less extent, that of the library containing 842 (1365 was found 
with only a couple of Homeric fragments) render us unwilling to lay much 
stress on the circumstance that all three papyri, which are approximately con- 
temporaneous, come from the same site. In about A. I). 300 copies of most of 
the Greek authors of the first rank and many of the second and third were 
probably still in circulation at Oxyrhynchus. But the historian who would be 
expected to come next in popularity to Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenophon 


is Eplioius, not Theopompus, works liad already begun to perish in 
Diodorus' time (Theop. Fr. 28 Grenfell-Hunt, jivji^ovs oktm irpos- rais- Tra-WiKovTa 
(^ wv TTiVTf bia4novov<Tiv) ; and if, as we are rather disposed to infer from the joint 
connexion with Diodorus, 842, 1365, and 1610 are the work of one author, he is 
certainly Ephorus. 

To summarize the chief points of value in 1610 from the point of view of our 
identification of its author with Ephorus, (i) the most important is that it enables 
us to realize for the first time at all adequately the debt of Diodorus, particularly 
in Book xi, to that author. That the younger historian was under great 
obligations to the older has long been supposed, but, since Diodorus also used 
various other authors, the extent and method of his use of Ephorus, whose name 
he rarely mentions, had nearly always to be guessed rather than proved. That 
he sometimes incorporated whole .sentences or even chapters with little or no 
change, at other times merely paraphrased or abbreviated his main authority, 
compressing some details and omitting some episodes altogether, but adding, so 
far as 1610 goes (cf. pp. 102-4), hardly anything of his own, is not only new 
but very valuable information. Where Diodorus is perceptibly longer than or 
different from Ephorus in 1610, the new matter is probably in the main an 
amplification introduced for the sake of variety (11. ]'~46, loi-io) or a mere 
rhetorical exaggeration (11. 69-7-,), though in regard to the latter passage some 
of Diodorus' variations may be due to deference for Thucydides (11. 62-76, n.). 
It is particularly instructive that Diodorus' account of the twofold battle of the 
Eurymedon, which is just one of the cases where his precise relation to Ephorus 
was most in doubt owing to the divergent evidence of Polyaenus (11. 62-76, n.), 
proves to be on the whole a very faithful reproduction of the older historian, and 
that a digression such as that in Diod. xi. jiS. 4-59 on Themistocles is now 
shown to have been borrowed almost verbally from Ephorus. Iwidently 
Diodorus was a writer of very slight originality, and a future editor of Ephorus' 
fragments will be able to include most of Diod. xi with confidence. His debt 
to Ephorus in that book is almost as great as are his obligations to Agatharchides 
in iii. 12-48, where a comparison of Diodorus with the excerpts of Agatharchides 
Uffjl 7J/y (pvOpai daXda-aijs preseived by Photius shows that everything in Diodorus 
down to the most minute details is borrowed from the older writer. Theopompus 
on the other hand, so far as the Pentecontactia is concerned, does not seem to have 
been utilized to any serious extent by Diodorus. The effect of 1610 upon 
the criticism of other books of Diodorus, especially xii-xv, is also likely to be 
considerable, but the discussion of these falls outside our present scope. It is 
clear, however, that much of Diodorus' work, which could be ignored, so long 
as his statements were regarded as merely those of a writer of the Augustan 


age, will henceforth have to be treated witli the respect due to the celebrated 
fourth century B. c. historian whom he was to a large extent copying. 

(2) There is now much more material for estimating the scale of Ephorus' 
history of the fifth century B. C. Diodorus seems to have incorporated most of 
the essential parts, but by no means all the details and digressions, and Ephorus, 
as is shown by the account of the land-battle of the Eurymedon and the plot of 
Artabanus, evidently wrote at very considerable length, though his account 
of the capture of Eion ignores the material available from Herodotus, and the 
sea-fight off Cyprus is described in a few lines. His system in dealing with the 
Pentccontaetia was to group events by subjects, not by definite years, an 
arrangement which led Diodorus into great confusion about the chronology of 
this period. But in dealing with the fourth century B.C., which occupied the 
second half of Ephorus' laTopiai, he may have employed a different method. 

(3) With regard to the sources of Ephorus, 1610 exhibits one clear case of 
direct borrowing from Thucydides (11. 37-46, n.), and an apparent reference to 
him in an allusion to authorities vaguely described as 01 ix(v (1. 8, n.) ; but in 
other respects 1610 comes into marked conflict with him ; cf. p. 107. Herodotus 
is not utilized in connexion with the capture of Eion, and Frs. 15-16 do not 
display any verbal connexion with the YlepaLKa of Ctesias, though Diodorus' 
language in a passage in this context betrays a use of that author ; cf 11. 119 sqq., n. 
There is now more reason than ever to suppose that the metrical inscription 
upon Cimon's victories was quoted by Diodorus from Ephorus (11. 267-9, n.). 

(4) Of later writers, other than Diodorus, who dealt with the Pentccontaetia, 
Plutarch kept Ephorus' history in view, but preferred to follow other authorities, 
while echoes of Ephorus are found in Justin, Aristodemus, Polyaenus, and 
Frontinus (p. 107). 

(5) For Ephorus' style the evidence is still scanty, and it is difficult to judge 
it fairly from fragments so discontinuous and brief as those in 1610. But it does 
not seem to have been much better than that of Diodorus, the leading charac- 
teristics of it being easiness, verbosity, and tameness, with a tendency to 
break into rhetoric (cf. pp. 107-8). 

(6) The discovery of 1610 affects many points in the controversy concerning 
the authorship of 842, and to a less extent that of 1365. On the whole it rather 
supports the attribution of 842 to Ephorus, since it tends to remove the difl^culty 
caused by the elaborate scale of that work, and reinforces the most solid 
argument for ascribing it to Ephorus, the evident traces of connexion between 
842 and Diodorus. In the light of 1610 it is increasingly difficult to explain 
those agreements with Diodorus from the point of view that 842 is the work of 
Theopompus or Cratippus. On the other hand the resemblances between 1610 

1610. EPHORUS, XII {OR XI) 113 

and DiodorLis often reach far beyond the point attained by 842, and the principal 
obstacle to the attribution of 842 to Ephorus remains in a somewhat accentuated 
form, the strictly chronological system imitated from Thucydides, which is found 
in 842, as contrasted with Ephorus' arrangement according to subject, which is 
well illustrated by 1610. With regard to 1365 there is less evidence for the 
extent of its resemblance to Diodorus, but the hypothesis that it came from an 
early book of Ephorus still remains attractive. 

Ephorus, in spite of his celebrity and wealth of new information not to be 
found in Herodotus, Thucydides, or Xenophon, was not a great historian, and to 
judge by 1610 it may be doubted whether in his treatment of the fifth century B. C, 
which brought him into frequent conflict with Thucydides, many of the novelties 
were of real historical value. The servility of Diodorus, who, as it now appears, 
followed Ephorus almost blindly through that period, and was practically 
incapable of original composition, has probably prevented us from losing very 
much when Books x-xv of the older historian perished. With his history of the 
fourth century B. c. the case is different. Here Ephorus is likely to have been as 
well informed as Xenophon, Theopompus, or any other, and if he was the author 
of the account of Agesilaus' and Conon's campaigns and the excursus on the 
Boeotian constitution in 842, his merits were by no means inconsiderable. Even 
with regard to quite early Greek history he was sometimes, if 1365 is from his 
work, distinctly independent of Herodotus and rather valuable. 

It is in any case satisfactory that with the recovery of these fragments of 
Ephorus' history of the Pentecontaetia the ' higher criticism ' of Diodorus not 
only can point henceforth to several substantial verifications of the methods of 
modern research in ancient history, but enters a new phase. 

Fr. I. Plate iii. Fr. 2. 

[ ] . ai' *r[. . . . 15 • . •]cBi' i(nroy8'\a(Te 

[ \ TTOTf r . [. . TIS ?] Si TOaOVTOl'l? Si. 

[ \rrjy t[. . . . a ? t]<b«' (py<ti\y .... 

[ Vt . [. . ava 

5 y[K\aiov [eVric [ Fr. 3. 

e/[y] Ta Tore n[ept rov [■](  [■ ■]<»[• •] eK[uvov 

0ffii<TTOK\io[vs Ae /^f VTTO Trjs 7roXf[(uy 
yovai S 01 fiiv o[ti vne 20 ririfiacrfiU'oi' T[r]v 

fj.vr](jiv avT[ov cov Si TToXiv Sia T|al? e 

10 TTfpi Ti TTji v[avfia KiLvov 7r/)a^€[ty] Tr;y 

Xioty Kai T7]9 y[i<pvpas /ieytoTTjy Ttfirj^ wo 




12 \Trpo\riyyeL\v TT[ipi. Se 
[tt)]^ ifavfia^[iai . . . 

[■ •]'• «[ 

Frs. 4 + 5. Plate iii. 
<ro]<p[a}TaTT]i' Kai 

StKai ?] iTalTTjf . . . 
. . . .]Ta[T]T][v] I K[ai 

30 xa\fTr]aiTaT\r]i' [yevo 
/^ei'']]y Trp09 | eKe[ii'ov 
01 S v\TTo\aii^avov[crLv 
OTL etJTrep e^ov\r][Or] 
e/c ? S6\vvaL rrfyi' -qye 

35 fiovia }]v ana[ 



Fr. 7. 
Col. i. Col. ii. 

[ ''::rv'' • • . 

[ ^veLTai [.]o[ 

[ ]• V^' ^^ Trpoo[ 

50 [tov yap ? 7rp]o? Avko iiav[ 

[firjSi]!/ Toy ^]\(a 55 6ricri[ 

Frs. 9 + 10 + 53. 
Col. i. Col. i 

[ Ktficoy TTVv] 

[Qavojiivos To\v T[(cy 
[Ilfpcroou aToXojy nept 
65 [rrji' Kvnpov av^vTiTa 
YxOoLi SiaKoai] 7rfi'[ 
[TTjKOVTa rr]p[oy]| Tpia[ 
[Koa-ias K]a.i TiT'^Tap[a 
[kopto] TrapaTa)([6iL 

Tcoi' EWrjifCoy a^t 
25 ooBiiaav 7j niyaXrjU 
[rjyifioi'l }]av olov t . 

Fr. 6. Plate iii. 
eiprj[ney . . . o6iv ? 
napi^[e^]r)iiii>- A[67] 
vaioi [8]e K[i\n<ovoi 
TOV M.t[X'\Tia8ov orpa 
Tr]yov[yT]o9 eKirXev 
aavTt^ (K Bv^avTi 
ov fiera tcov crvftfia 
^Q"' [Ht]o!'a TTjy em 
STp[vfio]yi Uepacoy e 
)(^ov[Ta)]y (lXov Kai 
[SKvp6\v rjy yr]q[o]v 

Fr. 8. 
KaXo]vfiepa)[y noXe 
cov oa]ai fiw €/c T[7;y 
EX\a\So^ r]aa\y a 
60 7ra)]/c(cr//ej'ai Tryapa 
]XP'?/ti[a] a-vy[iTTiia-e 

Fr. II. 

[ TOV p.i]v 

85 \crTpaTrjyo']v avrcoy 
[^€peySaTT]]i/ aSeX 
[(piSovy oj'TJa TOV l3aa[i 
[Xecoy (u tiji] aKrivqi [ 

1610. EPHORUS, XII (OR A7) 


70 [(Tlcty Sf noXw )(povo[i' 
TToXXay fxev tu)v k\iv 
Svvivovcrwv jiap^q\pi 

K(t>V ViOJV Sl«p6€[l 

[p](v eKaroi' S avTOis 
75 [a]i'Spa<nv [eliAe ^coypi] 
[eras t]ov n[ ]wy 

\a . [ 
Kai . [ 
So 7raT[ 
Ti Ta>[ 


Frs. 12 + 13. 
Col. i. Col. ii. 

[ ]f 

[. .] St€Tf\[ovf o]cr€S" 

[(»(T]re I'Ofii^ovm a 

95 TTO Tt;? riTTUp[ov\ TTjV 

{(poSof avT[oi9 yey]o 
vevat Tcav 7r[o]Xt7Xi 
a>v Trpoi Ta[s'l vav[i] e 
cpfvyoi' vTro[\]afil3a 
100 loi'Te? avToii (i[i']ai 
] . e 0tXja? oil 6?; 7r[o]\Xo£ 

90 ] fify VTTO Tcov Kara 

] . XillpOei'TCOV fKit 

<pv\aKa>v amOvrj^C^ 

105 [(7/CO/'] iV TTjL VVKTl 
[7ro]XXot Bi (ooVTi'i 1] 

rey toi^ EXXrj'cnv \ Sia 
Tr)v aTTopL[a^v onov 
110 T[p]a77-[o]([fTo] I /cat Tor 
[e]J[ai(l)i'r]s] \ avTOis f 
[nnreaoi'Ta (j)ol3 ?]ou 

[ ]?'■? 

Fr. 14. 

] aTpa[TicoT ? 
115 ] pv[kt ? 

av pjTOiy nvp[aoi' ? 


Fr. 15. Plate iii. 
[ r }]ov^ [ 

1 20 [• • • AoyX ^]o<popovs a)[y 

[ ]coi' iTvy\a[ 

[fiv A]pTa^fp^r]i [ 
[a/xa p.](v avTO^ Kara 
[o-x^ity ? TJTjy jSao-iXiiau 

125 [/SoyXo ?/ilej/of afia Se 
[SeSioo ?]? fJ-T] npay 

Fr. 16. 

[ ape]Koii'OV 

[to ? TJ7f ....]. if Trpos 
130 [rof eufoi/^oci MiOpL 
[SaTTjv KaTa]K[o\ipi 
[arjjc TOM ^aaiX(]ccs 

[ '■> 

I a 



Fr. 17. 
. ... So }]Xi)(ov t[. 

] . Ppa\(VV TOTTOV [. 
'c Kai TOV <TTpaT[. 
.] Kal [lOVOl T(OV [. 

•] rto]"""'? ^[ 

. . .^vov t[. . . . 


Fr. 18. 

140 ]^«[ 

Fr. 20. 

Col. i. 

Col. ii. 


a]Si\[(f)oi' ? 

eni\6nY[ai ? 

145 ].«5e [ 

end of col. ? 

Fr. 21. 
160 ]a 

Fr. 19. 




150 0-€[ 

Fr. 22. 
165 ]y 








] aAAa 





Fr. 2;^ (tops 

of cols. ?). 

Fr. 24. 

Fr. 25. 

Col. i. 



Col. i. 

Col. ii. 

]?? • 









t;/ a[ 




1" '75 



[X""— ] .'?' 


190 ]aa-i 


180 ]iov 





Fr. 26. 


27. Fr. 28. 

Fr. 29. 


(96 ]eKt . . [ 200 



jAucrat ray [ 

y opav [ ] Adr]vai[o 

205 ] . TO. 

iKHvo .'*]i' 7rpa^«[iy 

](T-qi (5[ Jl'OJ'TO 





]aAa[ ]r[ 


Fr. 30. 

Fr. 31 

Fr. 32. 

Fr. ii. 


[. . . ](ucrr[ 2 1 6 ]!/«_([ 

220 ]i'[ 


TT/j' e5cB/c[e jot; vf}[ 



7r]a/3a Tai\y 


Ti[ ]iSav [ 

Jo-rcof [ 

] 7ro:/3a[ 





1610. t^P/ZOj 


{OR XI) 


Fr. 34. 

Fr. 35 (top). 

Fr. 36. 

Fr. 37. 


] JTeXao-yofy [ 231 ] 

/cat T . [ 


225 ],"[ 

]i' Tira- [ 

]Xjo-Ta [ 

235 ] • ''.'[ 


250 Ka]Ta(pyy[ 




end of col. ? 

Fr. 38. 

Fr. 39. 

Fr. 40. 

Fr. 41. 

Fr. 42. 

237 i<^'' [ '■'f ^e ? 240 ] . . [ 


246 ]ai[ 

]a)y (5[e ? 


a( ? JJTO)!/ fX 



250 ]TaTr]i' 


? jot a;' oXXj;[ 245 ]f€i(7[ 



Fr. 43. 

Fr. 44. 

Fr. 45- 

Fr. 46. 

Fr. 47- 

252 ia[ 

255 ] «!^epy[f 


261 ]ra[ 




] • [•: y[ 


265 jfi t[ 


]ao-i;y[ 260 

]ur, . [ 




48. Fr. 49. 

Fr. 50. 

Fr. 51. 

Fr. 52. 

267 va plyy 

eX[or ? 270 ]vvTcoi' 

]«.' • [ 

276 v{ 


] af 

S[pOOV ? K]ai TCOV 



280 t[ 

/xe]y[a ? ] . 

275 M 



Fr. 53. 

Fr- 54- 

Fr. 55. 

Fr. 56. 

Fr. 57- 

2 82 ]|0[ 

285 ]Xa[ 2S7 



291 ]i;^[ 

lat t(t[ 


1 <ca7a[ 

290 jya)!/ 



Fr. 58. 

Fr. 59. F 

"r. 60. 

Fr. 61, 

Fr. 62. 

293 ]«;[ 

295 ] • ?[ 297 



301 ] 




300 €[ 


Fr. 1. (2) . . . TTOTE . . . (5) ai/a\y[K]al6v [ejoriv \ ] u[s] to T(Jt€ ^[fpi toC] ©f/iicrToic\€o[us. 

\e}yov<n &' 01 /je'i/ o rt v7T(]fivri(rev nuT[6i» Zir^ Trfpi re Trjs v^^[lVfJla X'T Kiii T^f yfl^Kpaf TrpojijyyftXf 
TT epi 6c rfj s vavjiax ins . .  

' ... it is necessary to (reiurn ?) to what (happened) then concerning Themistocles. 
Some say that he reminded liim of his warnings about both tlje sea-fight and tlie bridge; but 
with regard to the sea-fight . . .' 

2. \ or 1) can be read. 

4-5. ava !y[ic]aioi': the Supposed y could be p, but hardly r, v, or cp, which would make 


the beginning of 1. 5 project, and X could be read in place of a. (vay\y\i^iov (cf. 1. 12) is 
excluded by the fact that only the plural of this word occurs in Attic. Buiy suggests 
(Ka\vif\yai. ai'a\y[K\aiov \e\<TTi.v \av6is, referring to a previous account of the flight of Themistocles 
(Frs. 1-5 are themselves part of a digression anticipating the chronological order of events; 
cf. 1. 37 and p. 99). The letter following vi can bj f, but the hiatus -vai. ava- is an objec- 
tion to this restoration; cf. p. 107. 

6. (i[s] ra : of the letter following € all that survives is the lip of a stroke which might 
be vertical or horizontal, tvra or cnra could be read, but suggests no suitable word. 

7—12. Cf. p. 99, Thuc. i. 137 f'a-ir€fxn(i ypafifiara Tvpos /Sao-tXe'ii ApTa^cp^rjv tov Se'p^ov 
vedjaTi jSaaiXevovra. eS^JAov fie fj ypa(f)fj on BipKTTOK'Kri^ tJkq} jrapa ce, of kgkci p(v TrAetorn *EXXjjya)i' 
f'tpyiiT ficu TOV vpiTepov oiKoi/j OGQV ^povov TOV aov naTtpa iiriovTa kpo\ avuyKij rjpvvoprjv, ttoXv 6' €tl TrXe/oj 
dyaOd, eTTftfii) eV rw UTC^aXei pfv epoi, eVei'i'o) 5c iv (7TiKtvbvv(o TTtiXiv rj cnTnKnp.idr) eytyveTo. Kai /ioi fvipyfd'ia 
6<pfi\fTai. (ypi\//n$ rrji' TE Ik J.aXafi.Xvo'i TTpoaYY'^"'"' Ttis dcaxupi^crefc); Kal rfji' tCiv yi^upCiv, 
fjv \|/6trSii£ 7rpo(Ti7ruii]a-aTO, Tore di avTav ov didXvaiv), Km vvv e^aiv . . ., Plut, Tlicinist. 27 
QovKvhihi]^ p.kv ovv kol Xdpcov 6 AafjLyj/aKrjvus lo'TopovaL tsOvt^kotos Sep^ov irpos tov vlov avTov rw 
OepiaTOKKe'i yeria&ai ttjv evTev^n'' E<^opo9 Be Ktti AeiVtu^ Kal KX€tTap)(OS Kat 'HpaKXetSt]?, €Ti 
8' aXAoi TrXeioi'ts, irpos auroi' d(|>tKeV6ai, tov HcplTji'. toij 6e ^povtich SokiI /jaXXoi' 6 SovKvSiSrjs 
crvp<p('p(a-6ai, Ka'mep ovh' aiVoit drpepa crvvTiiTTopfvos. The following account of the reception 
of Themistocles by Artabanus the x^^^^PX"^' ^^'^o is identical with the Artabanus to whom 
Frs. 15-16 refer (cf. 11. 119 sqq., n.), is stated by Plutarch to be derived from Phanias, with a 
few extra details obtained from Eratosthenes Trtpi wXourov, and Phanias too, as is observed 
by Busok, iii. 132^, seems to have represented Xerxes as still reigning at the time of 
Themistocles' arrival ; cf. 1. 8, n. Plutarch does not state his source for the two next 
chapters (28-9), which relate in detail the reception of Themistocles by the Persian king 
and the honours paid to him, being partly derived from Thucydides, partly from some one 
else (Heraclides ? Busolt, iii. 129'). A difTerent version of the letter recorded by Thucydides 

is put into Themistocles' mouth, ijxo) aoi, fiacrtXev, Gf/uoro/cX^c . . . w TToXXa jiiv o<^fi'Xou(ri 
rtcpcrui Killed, ■nXfiai St dyiiBa kwKvituvti t!)v Sia^tv, St€ Trjs 'EXXdSof tv d(T(pa\e7 yevopivr]i TTape(T)(f 

Ta oiKOL aw^opiva x"p'^c''odai ti Kai vptv. Diodorus xi. 56. 8 shows more interest in the 
stratagem by which Lysilhides introduced Themistocles to Xerxes (cf. 11. 246-8, n.) than 
in Themistocles' defence of himself before the king, which is described quite briefly 

KaKfivov bovTos rw GepioroicXfi Xoyoi' Kn\ paSovTos ws ovdev TjbiK7](rfV. AristodemuS 10 Kin 
uttifirt^crev auxoi' (sc. Artaxerxes) twv (vepyeaiwv as t'Sd/cfi KaraTeffuadat eis tov TraTepa avTov 
A€p^i}i', Xeytoi' Kcu Tf)? (TOiTTipias avTW yeyfVTjadaL aiTios IcVSelt^ti ? XvcTctv Tovs "EXX'Tjvas to ^fiiypa, 

though primarily based on Thucydides, shows traces of a knowledge of Ephorus ; cf. 11. 62- 
76, n. Nepos {T/umist. 9) follows Thuc3'dide.=, scio plerosqiie ita scripsisse, Thcmisloclem 
Xerxe regnanle in Asiam -transisse. Scd ego potissimum Thtccydidi credo . . ., quoting the 
letter to Artaxerxes Idem rnulto plura bona feci poslquam in Into ipse el ilk in periculo esse 
coepil. A^am cwn in Asiam reverli vellel, proelio apud Salamina facto, lilleris eum cerliorem 
feci id agi til po?is quern in HeUesponlo feccral dissolverelur alqtic ah hoslibus circumirelur : quo 
nunlio ille perictdo esl liberalus. The earliest authority for the view that Xerxes, not 
Artaxerxes, was the king in question is Aeschines Socraiicus quoted by Aristid. ii. 293 
(cf. 1608). The date of Themistocles' arrival in Persia continues to be a matter of dispute : 
IJusolt, iii. 132'', sides with Thucydides, and assigns that event to a period short!}- alter the 
spring of 464. 

8. 01 p.iv: cf. the previous n. Thucydides is probably included, for the expressions in 
11. 11-12 seem to be derived from him, though qii7-[oi» is apparently Xerxes, not Artaxerxes, 
cf. the next n. Dinon may also be meant, for he was approximately Ephorus' con- 
temporary. Clitarchus and Heraclides, who were younger, can hardly have been referred 
to by Ephorus, nor can Phanias (cf. the previous n.), who was the disciple of Aristotle. 

1610. EPHORUS, XII {OR XI) 119 

8-9. vTTf l/in/o-ff avT ov : we prefer vni^fivrjaev to avt\ixvr)(Teii OH account of the parallel 
in Aristodemus 10 cited above. His work, the date of which is unknown, is based mainly 
on Herodotus and Thucydides, but its frequent resemblances to Diodorus, especially as to 
the causes of the Peloponnesian War, suggest the use of Ephorus, and vTTifj.vrjirff avrov looks 
like a reminiscence of the present passage. avT[ni', however, here is, we think, Xerxes not 
Artaxer.xes, because (i) there is no mention of the king's father (cf. Thuc. /.<'.); (2) the 
accession of Artaxerxes is described by Diodorus in a much later chapter, to which 
Frs. 15-16 refer; (3) Ephorus is definitely known to have agreed with the majority of 
historians that Xerxes was the reigning king. The difficulty is that owing to the loss 
of the second part of the sentence from 1. 1 4 onwards it is not clear whether our author 
accepted the opinion of 01 fie'v or not. If he rejected it, then ttv^[ov might be Artaxerxes 
and Fr. 1 would be more suitably placed after Fr. 16, with a backward reference in 11. 5-7 
to the account of Themistocles in Persia which must in any case have preceded Frs. 2-5. 
This would have the advantage of making the suggested connexion between 11. 7-12 and 
both Thucydides and Aristodemus closer ; but we are unwilling to separate Fr. i so widely 
from Frs. 2-5, seeing that Themistocles is the subject of them all. I'o retain Fr. i where 
it is, and make av^[ol' Artaxerxes, with a possible forward reference in 11. 5-7 to a subsequent 
mention of Artaxerxes, is a possible compromise ; but with [npoflyyeiXf the most natural dative 
to be supplied is airco, i.e. Xerxes, not rw narp'i avrov which would be required by the identifica- 
tion of odt[oj' with Artaxerxes. 

10. i[nvfin]xi.iis : cf. 1. 13, Hdt. viii. 75, Thuc. Ar., Died. xi. 17, Plut. Thcmisl. 12 
and 28. 

11. rijs- ■)\i<^vpai: cf. Hdt. viii. no tus iv 'EWrjtTTTuvTui yecpvpas Xviw, Thuc. /. C, Diod. xi 
19. 5 Tov natdaytoyov TOiv iSt'coy vloiv aTTCOTfiXe Trpos tov Sip^T]v hifKuttrovTa fiiori fuWovcrii' ot "EXXr^i/fs 

TrXtviravrfs eni to (eCypia Xiieiv riji- yi(pvpav, and the next n. Diodorus' employment of 
the singular (Hdt. and Thuc. have the plural) confirms >[f(/)i'p«s here; but the stroke 
following TTjs might be round just as well as straight. 

12. \TTpo\riyy(iK( : cf. Thuc. l.c. ■npoayyeXtrtv. [f^jijyytiXe would also be Suitable; cf. Plut. 
I htm, 12 ov eKTTf'pTTft TTpui Toi' Af'p^rjv Kpvcpa AceXfucTfi? "KtyiLV 071 66/ai(TroKX^s 6 tCiv ' A6t]vaiuii' 
{TTparrjyos alpoipd'Oi ra jBaaiXtuis e^ayyiW^t. Trpurros (ivrto tovs "EXXf/z/o? aTTO^i'^pdaKovTai, 

Fr. 2. TLs di . . .]ci)i/ ctr7roij6[ao"e ; t'is .m ^e Toaoi'rotlf Ota ^ rjiy tpyu\i' . . . 

I5~J7* ^"f" !'• 99 and Diod. xi. 59- 2 nV he Trpus auaaav rr}V iK Trjs 'Acrmy ^vfiipip (iracrnirco 
Tr/ TToXfi T:npaTn)^0e'is fViKijcrf ; Tis Se TOis cpyois ('" ('P']"}! Trjv jraTpiSa SwaTtji/ Knrea^xdaae 

To<7ouTois {tovtuis I\ISS. ; Toioi/Vois oi TotTovToii Reiskc). 'av cBH be a participle or the 

end of a phrase like SUi Ti>v epyaiv. With iairuvb'aae cf. 842. xiv. 7 icnrovha^ov (KiToXspuiiTai. 

jFrS. 3—5. . . . eVFfii/oy pet/ vno ttjs 7:6\(\ujs\ j^TLpatrperov, ^1^)''! ^^ iroXiV Sui ^Uni eKelvov 
TTpa^eis rrji peyttXTiji Tiprjs vtto tqhv 'EXXi^i^wi' n^LaiSeltral'^ i] peydXtjV Iriyepori? av olov . . . an (p cotutt)!' 

Ka't dlKai]OTd>Tt]i/ Jra[rio[i'l KUli )(a\fn^coTdTTfu \yevop(i/rj if npoi eKf^vov. ul 6' v\TTo\ap[iidvov\(Tiv 

0T( fljrrep ((iov\}]\ST] fV .^ fiojurat Tr]\y Tjyepovia ?]u . . . 

"... that while he was dishonoured by the city, the city owing to his achievements 
was held by the Greeks to be worthy of ihe highest honour, which (city founded) . . . 
a great empire . . . (the city) which was the wisest and justest became the most . . . and 
severe to him. Some suppose that, even if he wished to sun^ender the hegemony, . . . ' 

l8 Sqq. Cf. p. 99 and Diod, XI. 59- 3 ^tdrrfp ornv to ptyeSoi Twv ipyuiv avTov thojpt'jaoipeu 
Ka'i a-KonovfTfs rd Kara pepos (vpapev iKtlvav p.kv biro TTJs iroXeus T|Ti(Aa(Tfj.£Vor, rr)!/ 8t ■nokiv 8ia 
Tas CKCii'OU TTpdfcts eTratpopefTjVj (Ikotws ti)v doKoicrav eifiu riiiu d-naawv TToXftuf CTOt^ajTarnv Kal 


eTneiKCCTTdTTji' x<i^fiTa)TdTr)i' irpos iKt'wov t'vpiaKofxfv yeyti'mjieVT)!'. fii[p](»[fiev] is inadmissible 
in 1. i8. 

21-2. t[(i]s' cKewov npn^ds: cf. 11. 193-4, where the phrase perhaps recurs, suggesting 
that Fr. 26 belongs to this context. 

22-5. Diodorus has only one word here in place of seven : cf. p. 103. 

26. [r]yenni>i\nv : cf. EphorUS Fr. 67 TfXfuTija-ni'Tor yo;) fKeimv (Epaminondas) Tijv ifyiy-oviav 

ano^aXeLV ddvs tovs erj^aiovs. oiovtt is inadmissible. 

27-31. Gf. Died. /.c. The division of lines in Frs. 4 + 5 is uncertain, but there is 
hardly any doubt that Fr. 5, containing the supposed ends of 11. 29-31, is rightly joined 
to the other. Bury suggests aWws before fTo\(p[aiTaTr;ii and fialraiojriifrj^ii/] before "[di. Cf. 
1. 32, n. 

30-1. [ytTOluffi;]' : [yf)/cfi)|Mc>";]'' (cf- Diod. /. c.) seems too long for the lacuna. 

32. i']7roXo^/3nr'oi{crii' : cf. 11. 94-9, n. The adopted restoration of 11. 32-5 was proposed 
by Bury. <0odXi)[5i) «/c8o]ui^ai produces a hiatus, which is unsatisfactory (cf 11. 4-5. n. ) ; but 
iTpo8o]vfai seems too long, if x"^^"]'^^"^')" 's the beginning of 1. 30. With the division 
xn\\c!T]o>TiiTr]v, however, npo\Muvat could be read; cf. 11. 27-31, n. The division ;^;aAe.7r]-»1•nTI)l' 
would create a great difficulty in 1. 31, for there would not be room for ji'i;]i' or \(Ta\" 
and a participle is wanted there, the v being nearly certain. 

34. Tlie vestige of a letter before vm suggests y, t, or v, so that r]ni> aiTi[av is unsatis- 
factory, though the doubtful r; can be 1. awa[(rnv is possible, but with another word than 
lyyf/ioi'ia]", for which cf. 1. 26, n. 

I"r. 6. . . . eip';[/JfV . . ., o^fi'] 7rnpf|[f'^]i;/jfj'. 'A^STj^vaioi [8]c K[i]^coi'of toC MtXTidSoi/ 
(TTpaTjjyoCji'rlof (KTrXevaavra cV Bv^avriov fiiTa tuv crvpiiaxo>v ['Hijoi'a T^f fVi 2Tp[i'/idli'( Uep/rSiv 
€x6f\Tal^il fiXoi' Km ['SKvpo^v, fjv vrja^o^v . . . 

' . . . from which we digressed. The Athenians under the command of Cimon son of 
Miltiades sailed out from Byzantium with their allies, and captured Eion on the Strymon, 
which was in the possession of the Persians, and Scyros, which island . . .' 

36-7. Probably tuis]] (ipri[pemi! ovto)v]\ (ipri[p(vo)v. For o6fv] cf. Arist. £//i. Nic. i. 5. i o6ev 

TTopf^ifiripfv, and for ■7Tap(^\(Si\rjp(v Diod. xi. 59. 4 ntp\ ptv ovv trjs efpiaroKKeovi dperfji «i kui 

TrfirXeomKapfv TraptKpdi'Tes, dXX' ovv ovk a^iov . . . The digression evidently contained the 
estimate of Themistocles (Frs. 2-5) ; but the fibres of the verso of Fr. 6 suggest that 
it belongs to a different column. Bury suggests something like cTraww/iev fit t<i(tovtwvtt(pi.tov 

©e/iKTro/cXcoiir] (ipj)\^fifvmv'. cf 11. 4— 5, n. 

37-46. Cf. pp. 99-100, Hdt. vii. 107, where the heroic defence of Eion by Bo'y?;j is 
described in some detail, Thuc. i. 98 (the source of the present jiassage : cf p. 107) npioTov 

piv 'Hidi'a ir\v cm l7pvp.6v\. IMr/Swi^ iyJiVTitiV 7To\iopKia etXoi' Ka'i iji>^piinu6tiTav, KL|ibji'09 tou MiXridSou 
axpaTilYoOi'TOS. enftTa jKupOk t^m fV toj Aiyniu) vfjaoi', T]!' a)K<ivv AoKoiTfs. tj^dpano^iaai' Ka'i utKiuai' 
avToi, and Diod. xi. 60. 1—2 'ASi^i/atoi aTpaxtjYoi' eXdfiei'oi Kifiui/a tw MiXridSou kt\. (cited on 
p. 103), which is longer than 1610, but adds nothing new about the capture of Eion, and 
bears distinct traces of derivation from 1610, especially llie mentions of Byzantium and Pelasgi 

(cf. p. 100). Plutarch's account {Citlton 7) Ki'/uwj' 6f roiv CTvppax<'>'> 'jhr) TrpnuKexfJpriKuTiiiv avTM 
(TTpaTrjyoi fis &paKr]if f7rXeu(r£, nvvOafopevos Hfptjwi' aifSpai cVfio^ovf Kai avyyeveis /ifacrtXeo)? Hiovit 
noXtv TTiipii TO) ^Tpvpovt. KfLpivrjv TToTapui Karex*^^'^"^ tVo;(XeTz' Toti irep'i roi' tottov (kuvov "KWrjijL. 
npwTov piv nvv avTois pftx^l rttis llepa-as ivUr^iji Ka\ KiniKKnafv (Is ttjv TrdXip' e'eira Toi's imep ^rpv- 

poua epaxus kt'X., which proceeds to narrate the story of lioyvs (here called BovTtji) told by Hdt., 
is based on other historians than Ephorus. 

46. [2xi;po]v: cf. Thuc. and Diod. //.a: Our author was much more detailed; 
cf. Fr. 7- 

1610. EPHORUS, XII {OR XI) 121 

Fr. 7. 49-51. Cf. p. 100 and Plut. Cimon 8, where ihe story of Cimon's recover)' of 
the bones of Theseus is narrated in detail, being possibly based on Ephorus, especially the 

mention of Lyconiedes, TivvBavoiifms Si tov naXmbv Qijcr^a TOO Alyias (jivyovTu jxiv f| k6r]va>v (is 
^KvpoVj aiiTov 5* dirodiifuvTa fioXw dta <^6^tiV vno AvKOfirjdovs tov ^afftXe'to? tanovdafff tov Ta<l>ov 

aveipeiii. av\yTov hi 7rp]i)f would make 1. 50 rather short, but perhaps av\\Tus (sc. Theseus) 
h(() . . . pfv]os should be read. Fr. 35, which mentions the Pelasgians and a Ka]ra4>vyi_i) ?, is 
probably to be connected with the episode; cf. p. 100. 

55. dijcn[ : the last letter might be y, ^, k, or n, but not e, so that a reference to Theseus 
(cf. the previous n.) is inadmissible. 

Fr. 8. Twv 7^apaS^a\a\TTiwl' koKo vpe'vu^v ttoXcoji' oo-jnt pfv c'k rlrji 'EXX«15os ^an^i' «7ra)Vi(T^eVat 
TT^apajxprjpa <Tvi{(n(i<T( , . . 

• ... of the so-called coast cities those which had been founded from Greece he at 
once persuaded (to revolt).' 

56-61. The division of lines in this fragment is practically certain. Cf. p. loi and 

Diod. xi. 60. 4 7r\ei'(7a? nvp pcTu Trat'Tos tov (ttoXov TTpiis tj)v K<iptai\ rdv TTapaGaXaTTtwi' TToXewi' 
oaai ^l€lf riffai' €K ^r^s 'EXXdSo? diTWKtap.eVat, tovtos TrapaxpTifAO- (xuviTrmrev aTToaTijvaL twi/ 
Il€p<Twv, o(Tai 5' v7Trjp)(ui' fii'yXcoTTOt Ka\ (jipovfjas f^ovo'ai XlipatKas jSinv TTpoaayoiv f7ro\i6pKei, which 

only differs by the omission of KuXovpfi/ait', the changed position of ?}(Tav, and the insertion 
of TavTas. Plutarch's account {Ci'mo?! 12) is differently worded, to piv iiT6p6(L Km KarecrTpe- 

(p€TQ. Ta 5c ti(pitTTr] KOI vpofTr^yiTO Tot? "EXXijO'ti', to(TT€ TTpf (177* 'iwi'toj 'AfTmf a_Ypt X\ap^v\uis 

TravTanaai UtpcriKoiv oirXwv (prjpaia-ai, and proceeded to give fresh details omitted by Diodorus. 

With 7ra/jn5].iXa[7TiW cf. 842. XXi. 1 7 <ipvyias rrjc TTap[a6a^\aTTi&iov, and with ajraKta-pimi 

Ephorus Fr. 30 a (FHG. iv. 642) from schol. Aristid. p. 11. 17 Dindorf 01 8e ras dTrotWaf 

KUToKiyovffiv' €is "E(popof nTTOTCtvfrai of Trept T^y ^]wviKrjS dwoiKLas fypay^e (sc. in Book iii). 

Frs, 9 + 10 + 53. . . . Kipoiv TrvvBavopfvos Tojy tuov Hfpawv otoXo]' TTfpl [t/)i' Kinrpoif 
<TvyjT(Td^)(daij diaKnai'ais TTfvrrfjKovTa 7rlj[6?l Tptaucoaias KJal TfTrap\iiKovTa.] 7TapaTa^\0fLiT]as ^€ ttoXui/ 
^puvov TToXAa? p(v Ttiiv K\iv'\6vi'fvov(Tio:^ l:iaplda\pL\<(oy vfiiji' 5if0^fftp Jer, ckiitov 5' ai'rotff fa]''S^(icrii' L^l^^* 
Co)ypjj^(Tas rloy 7r[ ](iiv . . . 

• (Cimon attacked, perceiving) that the Persian fleet was drawn up off Cyprus, with 
two hundred and fifty ships against three hundred and forty. After they had opposed each 
other for a considerable time, he destroyed many of the barbarians' ships which ran into 
danger and captured a hundred of them wiili the crews, taking alive . . .' 

62—76. Cf. p. lOI and Diod. xi. 60. 5—6 ol di Hipcrni to piv TTi^of (TTpi'iTfvpa dt iavTwv KaT€- 
(TKfvawaVj To di favTiKov tj$poi(Tav iK T€ ^oivUrjs Ka'i KviTpov Kin KtXiKuii" i(TTpaTt)y(L 6e Twv UepaiKtijv 
6i'i'(j/iea)r Tt^/jai'trTr^s', I'iof wv Z€p^"V poOos. Ktpayv 6e TTvvOai/o^jifi'os TOi' (TToXoi' tu}V HeptrCiv biarpilBfiv 
irepi Trii" Kuirpor ku] TrXeiiras f'jri Toi'S ^ap^apovs (mvpdxi<T( 8iaK0<n'ats Ka'i irck'TriKOi'Ta inna'i irpos 
TptaKOCTias Kai TeTxapaKOtTa. ytvopivov h' nyoji^os l(T\vpov Ka\ tow oroAcuf dpfpoTepuif XapTTpojs 
dywfi^opet'un' to TiXfvTinop eviKitiv ot 'A^f^rtuni, Ka\ iroXXds y.kv TUiV (favriwv I'aus 8ie4>veipai', 
TrXetovs 6e twv cKaxoi* (tvv auTOls Tu'ts dvSpciait' etXor. Toiv be Xoljjwv vfuiv Karafjn'yovauiv m 
Tijv KuTTpov 01 ptf €v (2UTais tiuSpfs fls Trjv yrjv dnf^^copTjtrav, at 6e vrjfs Kevnl twv j^oqOoivTojv ovaat 

ToU TroXe/ii'oij cyevfjdqaav iirn^eipwi. In xi. 62. 1 Cimon's total Captures in connexion with 
this battle are estimated at 340 triremes, i. e. the whole Persian fleet, Diodorus forgetting 
there to allow for the ships sunk. Plutarch's account {Cimon 12), as usual, is mainly 

different, "Ec^opos piv oZv TtOpaiKjTTjv cprjo-'i Toiv PaaiKtKav vei>v ap\fiv Ka\ toC 77cfo{; ♦cpcfSdrrn' 
(cf. I. 86), KaXXifT^f'r;;? 6' ^ Aptopnvhr]v tov Vwiipvov KvpiwTaTov ovto Ttjs hvvdpcws nnpd tov EvpvpibovTa 
Tatff vavcTt TTapoppi'iVy ovk oVTa pd^fa^ril To'is "EXX/;cri TrpoSvpov^ aXXa irpo<T^fy^op(vov oydot}KOVTa vaits 
^otvi(T(TGS duo KuTTpou TTpofTTrXiovffas. Tai'-af fpB^vai (^ovXopfvos 6 Kipwv dvi)^6ij, l:iid^€a$ai Trape- 


aKevaafxefos, av iKoi^Tes fij) vavna^uaLV. ol 8c npoiTov fiei', ws firj jBiaadsUv, eh top ttotg^ov fiVcop/xi- 
(TavTO, TTpo(r(ji€pofieva)i/ Se Toif Aujjvaicov ai/re^eVXei'traf, wf laTopet ^avoBrj^os, t^aKoty'iai^ vavcrlv^ ws 6' 
'Ecj)opos, 7^eMTr)K0^'Ta Kai TpiaKOaiais, epyov de Kara yoi'V ttjv SuXcittuv ovdiv vn avTwv fnpd\6ri rrj'i 
bvvafieoii I'i^iov^ dAX' fvdvs fts T7)i' yjjv drT0O'Tpe<l>0VTes i^tTinVTOv oi Trpoirot Ka\ KaTe(f)evyov etV to Tre^Of 
eyyi'S" 7TapaT€rayfi^vov, ol 8f KaTa\ap(3av6fi€t'Oi ^Le(pd€LpovTo p^ra twv vfoiv. co Ka\ br]\6if iiTTiv ort 
TTfj/xTroXAai Tii'ff at 7rf7rXr;pa)/zeVot rots (^apjSapois vrj^i Tjcai'j ot€ 7to\\q}V pev^ a)f fiVdr, (KCpvyovadfj 
noWwv Be avvTptf'ieia'Oii/, opoii al^pa\6)Tovs BiaKotriai eXaliov ol AOijt'oiot. The ngUre 200 ^IsO 
occurs in the brief account of Thucydides i. lOO iyiviro hi pera Taira K(U Sj (V Elpvpihovn 
TTorapw iv Ilap(pu\ia ireCopa^ia kol vavpa\La \\Sqvalcoif kiu twv ^vppd^wu npos Mr;8ou?, Kai ivUitiv tij 
iivTJj rjpepn dp<p6r€pa ABr^vmoL Klpoivoi tov MiXTtdbov (TTpaTT]yovi/Tos, Kai clXov rpiijpfis ^oivikwp Ka'i 

hffpdeipai' rds mhras eV SiaKoaias, and in the confused account of Nepos (CimoH 2. 2), who 
erroneousl}' makes Mycale the scene of the sea-fight, Idem iterum apud Mycakn Cypriorum 
el Phocniciim ducentaricm navium classem devictam cepit. The concluding sentence of 
Thucydides is obscurely worded, and it has been proposed to insert a numeral (tt) after 
<^oi.v'iKu>v \ cf. Busolt, iii. 146^. Plutarch evidently knew Ephorus' account, but followed 
a historian (apparently Callisthenes), who agreed in the main with Thucydides as to the 
locality of the sea-battle and the number of the Persian losses. Thucydides' account, 
supplemented by Plutarch's, is usually preferred to any other (cf. Busolt, iii. 146*); but 

besides Diodorus Aristodemus 11. 2 Kipuivnt 5e tov MiXT-idSou it TpaTrjy ovvros aff-rrXiva-av eVi Trjv 
Hap(pv\iav KaTa tov Xeyopevov ^vpvpehoi^Ta TVOTapov Ktn ivavpa^rpjuif «I>otrt^t Kai n^paats Kai XapTTpd 

fpya (TTfSfi^ni'To, cKaTOf T€ caus cXoi'Tes ourai'Spous (nf(opuxi(Tai', was evidently influenced by 
Ephorus, and Froniinus, S/nj/eg. iv. 7. 45, agrees with Diodorus both as to the locality of 
the sea-fight {apud insulam Cyproii) and the stratagem of Cimon at the land-battle of the 
Eurymedon (cf. Died. xi.6i. 1-2 and 11. 77-8,n.). Polyaenus, i'/ra/f"^. i. 34.1, inverts the scene 
of the sea-fight (off the Eurymedon) and the stratagem (Cyprus), and Klussmann and 
Duncker (cf Busolt, /. c.) held that this represented Ephorus' description more closely than 
Diodorus' account — a view which is disposed of by 1610. Some echoes of Ephorus, how- 
ever, seem to survive in Polyaenus' account ; cf. Kai iroWa a/cde^r; PapPapiKo, eXwi' with 
11. 72-3 and roe o-ToXoK (is <|)iXioc iVoSex""'"'" ^^'i'h 11. 98-101. Justin gives no details, but 
the figure 100 for the ships captured by Cimon is also found in Lycurg. c. Leocr. 72, and 
is supported by the metrical inscription quoted by Diodorus xi. 62. 3, no doubt from 
Ephorus, even if Fr. 48 does not actually belong to it (cf 11. 267-9, n.). Diodorus' 
exaggeration of it TrXtioi's twv iKmov (/. r.) is either merely rhetorical (cf. p. 1 1 1) or made out 
of deference to the figure 200 in Thucydides. In favour of the second explanation is the 
circumstance that his insertion of to TtKtxnaiov (vIkwv ol 'Adrjvaiot suggests the influence of 
Thucydides (koi fviKav . . . 'ABqm'.ot). Whether Diodorus had any other authority for his 
statement tuw ordXcoi' aptporepav XapTrplas dyioia^opevaiv than Ephorus' reference to ttoXw )(p6vov 
may also be doubted. Aristodemus, /. c, speaks of Xapirpa ^pya, but in reference to the Greeks 
only, and Plutarch, /. c, definitely denies that the Persian fleet made any serious resistance, 
in contrast to the subsequent KpaTtpa piixi on land, of which his rhetorical descrijition has 
been ascribed to Theopompus ; cf. Busolt, iii. 146''. 

62-3. For nvvdnvopems cf. Diod. /. r. The verb mav well have been ai/rf^en-Xeuo-f (cf. 
Plut. /. r.'). 

66-9. The figures are exactly reproduced by Diodorus, /. c. No importance is to be 
attached to the variation in Plutarch's figure (350 instead of 340) of the number of the 
Persian fleet according to Ephorus; cf. p. 106. Frs. 9, 10. i and 53 do not actually touch 
each other, but the combination is practically certain ; cf. 11. 282-4, n- Of ^he third r in 
TfTTap[aKovTa a bit of the cross-bar is on Fr. 9 and the tail of the vertical stroke on Fr. 10. 

73-4. ^t((f>6([i.p](v : this word occurs twice in 842 (xiv. 9 and xix. 20). 

76. :;[ ]al': n[fpo-iK]a)V (sC. Svmpeaf) (or 77 oXf/JiJwr), followed b\' Jjyepova (i.e. 

1610 EPHORUS, XII {OR A7) 123 

Tithraustes ; cf. Diod. /. c.) can be restored, but the article is expected, tt is nearly certain, 
ye[, ^({j or 76)[ being the only alternatives and less satisfactory readings. Ta'iv nfpa]wv is 

therefore inadmissible; but rov n[ jmi-ISrji/, i.e. a subordinate Persian admiral, or 

conceivably ra)[3piiai'l (cf. Callisthenes ap. Plut. /. c.) av (i.e. tuv) is possible. 

Y7-8. The height of die columns in 1610 is unknown, but probably about 40 lines are 
lost between 11. 76 and 77, so that the remains of Fr. 10. ii would be expected to be parallel 
to some part of Diod. xi. 61. 1-2, which narrates the beginning of the land-batlle of the 
Eurymedon. Perhaps 11. 77-8 are to be connected with iveiii^ncrfv ds tos alxh't'^iorilias Mwt 

Twv lblo3V Toli dpi(TTovSj doi's riapas Kai tijv «AXT]^' KUTaaKevijP 7Tepi$€\s Vl€p(nKTjif. oi 5e lidpl^dpot 
npaa-nXf'ovTes I'lpn rov aroXov rnit YlfpcriKius mva\ k<u TTapaiTKevms if/fvaStfTd inr(\alinv rds i&ias 
Tpii'jpdS elvai. ti6n(p ovToi jiiv TrpoaeSi^avro kt\. (cf. 11. 200— 2, n.). iSovres . . . Kui rrjv nX] Xtj^ 

[KaTa(r<(vrjv vnf]\\ap[ffavov (cf. 1. 99) is possible, the letter after \a beginning with a vertical 
stroke (not /3). Another passage which might be connected with 11. 77-8 is xi. 61. 4 tovs 

piv yap "E'hX'nvas ov^ v77f\6.^l(iLii'OV jJk€lv npus avrovs pera dvt'dpfws to (tvvoXov prjb* ^X^'^ '^''^' ^^^ 

EX^:XT;i'[nt MIX v;rf]]Xa/i[/3iiioi' makes 1. 77 too short, and in the absence of any correspondence 
in ch. 61 with 11. 79-83 the remains of this column may well have been concerned with 
details omitted by Diodorus ; cf. p. 112. 

Fr. 11. TOP /lejf lurpaTrjyolp avrcop i<i*fp€v^dTrj]v ilBeX^fptbovv oVrla rov /3aa[iXea)9 fV Ttj] o-Ktjvrj [ 

• . . . (they killed) their general Phcrendates, who was the king's nephew, in his tent.' 

84—8. Cf. p. lOI and Diod. xi.6l. 3 /en! toi' fiiv crTpaTi]y6v t<ov ^apjiapav tuv frfpor ♦epEfSdrrji', 

d8€Xi|>i8oGi' Tou PacriXeas, tv rrj (TKT]rT| KaTa\iij36iiTei fc/ioiei/o-nf, which hardly differs. The two last 
words or an equivalent must have followed 1. 82. Pherendales was mentioned by Ephorus; 
cf. Plut. Cimon 12 quoted in 11. 62-76, n. and p. 106. 

Frs. 12 + 13. . . . hiiTi'K\ovv oj'Jreff, [coo-Jre vopi^oprfs unb rrjs jjiriiplov] rrjv effiodop amUiis 
y€y'\r)P€vcn tup TriolXf^i'uy Trpos ''fi[y] i/niif] *(^fvyof, VTro\\^ap',iLivnvTfs avrins 6i[i'jat (ptXia^' ov 67} 
7r[o]XXo! pev vtto twv KaTa\fi(p6ePTaip €K('l cpvXdKiop dneSpii^rrKov'^ eV rij vvktl, ttoXXoi Se fa»/iff 
j]\i(TKnpTO TT€pt7ri7TToPTfs Tols "^EWrjaip 6ia Ttjv dnopiya\i' ottov TLpJaTT^ojiLiTo], Kat TOP [e]^[a((^i'jjsj 
airoU f|7ri77f (rdira (f>n(i ?]f)jy. 

' . . . Hence, thinking that their enemies' attack was from the land, they fled to 
the ships, expecting these to be on their own side. There many of them were killed in the 
night by the guards who had been left behind on the spot, while many were taken alive, 
falling into the hands of the Greeks through their ignorance which way to turn and the fear 
which had suddenly overtaken them.' 

93. StereXloui' oltrf s : cf. 1365. 16 ^'[iereXlefre StntTcj/ici'os' khI rratbevopfpcs nvTws. ni YliutBts 

(x6poi may have preceded, the sentence probably corresponding to /<ni tu npui aiTuvs dXXoTpims 
cxo''''as in Diodorus ; cf. the next n. 

94 S-qq. Cf.pp. IOI-2 and Diod. xi. 61. 4-6 t(ws pip ydp "EXhrjvasoix inrfKuplicwnp ijxapTTpbs 
avrovs peril dvpdpecos to o'lyfoXof', jui;tV f^^*^ tii'Toi's "ne^ijp arpoTLai' TreTretapii'OL' rnus 6e UcTidai oirof 
opupovi Km rd npiii avrovs dWoTpiws i^opras vireXdpjSai'OP r^Knv /lerd hvvdp(ws (uTreX. . . . ?ivv. del. 
Madvig). fiiu Kfil I'OfiiaaKTCS diro rfjs r|T7€ipou rr\v (irKpopiip iivai tCiv iroXejiiui' irpos to,? kous wf 
npiys 4>iXtas k{^€vyov. ti-js hi i'UKTOS ovaijs dafXjjpov Ka\ (TKorftp^js avpi^atpe rfjp aypoiav noXv /laXXni/ 
aij^fat^ai Kiii ^t)?)ipa rdXtj^is dvi-aaOai Ihflp, dii> Kai 770XX0U (^drou yevopipov Sid rtjp dru^iap to}p 

iiapiSdpapo pip Kipup kt\.{c(. 11. 1 14-16, n.). Plutarch's account(C/wo« 13, fromTheopompus.'; 

cf. 11. 62—76, n.) is quite difTerent, ™i' Se n-cfwv (niKaraiidpraip npiis rrjp ddXaairav piyn pip tpyov 
i(paLP€ro rm Kipajvi ri) ^td^fcr^ni rrjp dn6,3a(rip Ka\ K^KpTjKiWas aKprjat Kcil TToWmrXaiTLnis indyetp tols 
KWqpuSf opojs 8i pwpj] Ka\ (fipopfjpart rov Kpareip opiov errrjppipovs Ktu irpodvpovs 6po(T€ \<t)pelp rots 
f3a/j/3dpo(j-, d7r€/3i/3a^6 rovs 6n\iras ert BepyLovs rw Karii rt)i< pavpaxiav dyoipi peril Kpnvyrjs Kn\ hpopnv 
npo(Tff}epopei'ovs, viroardirajp oi twi' Ueptri^v Ka\ be^apevwv oik dy(vpii)s Kparepii pi'ixf] ovfearrj' Ka\ 


Tuv 'AdrjvaliDv t'ivSpd dya^oi (cai Tois d|iai/i<i(ji tt/joitoi koi SiaTrpeTrcis iTTiaov. ttoXXm 8 ayoyvi Tpeya- 
jxevm Tovs (iap0dpuvs (KT(wov, tira jjpovv avrovt re km a-Krjms TravToSajran ;^p7fjaTuy yepovcras. 

Diodorus' reference to the absence of the moon seems to be his own invention, since there 
is no indication in 11. 105-7 o^ anything corresponding to it and no further reference to the 
darkness is in fact expected after 1. 104. Possibly, however, the absence of the moon may 
have been mentioned earlier in Ephorus' account. 

94-9. vopi^nvTfs . . . V7ro[\]ajU/iJiii'oi'7ft : cf. vopi(opiV vitoKap^avovTd in Ephorus Pr. 2, and, 
for i7roXa^/3(ij'fa', 11. 32, 77-8, n., and 842. vi. 10, xi. 17, xiv. 11. 

loi. (piXias: cf. 842. xiv. 40 (piUas, and Polyaen. S/ra/eg. i. 34. i, quoted in 11. 62-76, n. 

102-4. KaTii'Kci(j)fi(VT<ov . . . (pvXaKiov: cf. EphoruS Fr. 53 (l>v\aKas fit KariXmnv. 
104. aiT(6vrj\(TKoi^: cf. 842. XX. 33 auppei^avm (i7ro6[i']i)TKijv<rii'. 

108. That the fragment containing en and part of the v of EXX7)]aiv and the ends of 
II. 103-7 is rightly combined with the top of the v admits of hardly any doubt. 
1 1 1-12. The letter after avrois may be t, and ]m may be read for ]ov. 

Fr. 14. . . . OTpnTriajT .' — 1 vI'[ct .^ — ai'jroif Ttvpyrov^ — ]ii)i'a[. . . 

114-16. Cf. p. 1 01, Diod. /. c. 6 pev Kipaiv TTpotipTjKi^s T019 aTpaTiwrais T/jof rui/ dp6i](rupfVov 
irupo'oi' awTpix^tv rjpe Trpos this vav<r\ iTV<Tcrr)poi', (vXajiovpefos pr} Hifunappevav tCjv (TTpaTiojToiv Kai 
npoi dpnayfjv 6ppr)i7avr(iiv yevi)Tcu ri napdXnyoi/. tt(Wt<dv 6e irpos run jivpuon ddpoi(T$evTwv Ka\ iravaa- 
pivav Ti'/s dpTTayrji, Tore pev (Is Tat vavs direx'^PI"'^''- '''!) ^' icrfpnia ktX. TTvpcfVfiv OCCUrs m 

Ephorus Fr. 107. Fr. 48 not improbably came beiween Fis. 14 and 15; cf. 11. 267-9, "• 

Frs. 15-16. T?]i)i"if [. . . \oyx'?]<"t'opovs, J)[i' ]u)i' fVuyxa[i'f'' o 'XJpra^ep^rjs, [apa 

n]ei/ avTos KaTa[<Txe'iV? t].;i' /3<io-iXfi'av [/SodXoju .'jcfoj, apa 8i [SfSioi .?]f prj npay[p!i . . . ! di-f jicoiroC>[TO ? 
TTfv , , A , tp irpos \r6v fvvovxoi''\ MiBpil^aTqif Karal< o]t/jt[aT^i' tov ^affiXeJu)?. 

'. . . the spearmen, of whom Arlaxerxes hapjiened to ba . . ., being at the same time 
anxious to obtain the kingdom iiimself and afiaid that ... he communicated the (plot) to 
the eunuch Mithridates, the king's chamberlain.' 

119 sqq. Cf Diod. xi. 69. I fVi 8e tovtov Kara ti;!/ 'Acriav 'ApTi't^avos to pev yevos 'Ypxavios, 
Svvdpevos 8f TrXfio-Toi' Trapd ra (iaaiKel Sep^r; Ka'i riov Snpv(j>6pa>v d(fir]yovpims, (Kpifev ave\e\.v run 
Sc'p^rjv K(u TT)^ Pao-iXeiai' dt eauT6>' pfTaarriirai. di'aKOii'UTd)xei'OS Se ti}i' fniliovXtjv irpos MiOpiBaTili' 
to;' eui'oOxoi', o? ^u KaTaKOifjiiorTT)S tou PaoriXc'ws kiu rrjv KvpiuiTdTJjp i'xMV nitiTiii, apa de Ka'i (Tvyyevlji 
<t)i/ 'ApTG^dmv Ka\ (piXiis vn!)Kovcre npos ttju en-i^JouXiji'. [rai ti)!/ Ki'pimraT;;]i' can be restored in 

1. 133. Probably Fr. 16 followed Fr. 15 widi a very slight interval (cf. p. 102), which is in 
accordance with the general appearance of the recto of these two fragments, though the 
verso does not suggest their propinquity, avros in 1. 123 we refer to Artabanus, the phrase 

KaTa[a-xe'iv t]!)v ^aa-tKfiiw [^ovK6p](vns (cf. KaTaa-xfif TtjV d^X')" i" Diod. xi. 69. 4 quoted below, 

and Tiji/ xwpai' Karaaxfl" in Ephorus Fr. 29) being very close to both Diodorus' ti^i- ^a(n\(tav . . . 
peTa<TTfi<TM and Justin iii. i Aerxes . . . quippe Arlahanus praefecliis eius . . . in spent regni 
adducttis cum septan robus/issirnis fiUis regiam vcsperi ingreditur, which is likel)' in an_\- case 
to have been partly derived from Ephorus. The chief difliculiy is that Sop'ix^dpow would be 
expected in 1. 120' but the bottom of the letter preceding <\>» (which is practically certain) 
does not come below the line, nor is the tail of a jirecednig p visible. The word is therefore, 
we conjecture, a synon}in for 8opv(j>6povs, \oyx}i(t)dpnvs being preferable to Ihctt] )</)Jpoi's. 
With the reading tov]s (pupovs there might be a connexion with Diod. xi. 71. i eVi &' tuvtwv 

' ApTa^ip^rjs u (iacnXfiis tuc Hepadv lipri Ti)r/ /SiKriXeiap uvaKTrjadpfnos , . . Siera^f ra Kara rtji' 
liacnXfiav avprpfpovras avrtf . . . cTre/ifXry^i; te Ka\ twv Trpoirdhmv Ka\ t^s hvvdptav KnrawicfDijf, (tni 
Ka66\ov rrjv jiacri\(liiv oXt/v eVtfiitmt Sioikmi' peyd\r]s UTToSoxrjS tTvyxavt Tvapd tois Ilepcrnis. 1 he rest 

of Fr. 15 would then have to be restored differently. But though airds could l)e Art.ixerxes 


and [KTtjo-a^jfi'os is possible in 1. 125, the other parallel is closer and more satisfactory. It is 
just possible that, while Fr. 15 refers to the plot of Artabanus, the parallel section in Diodorus 

is not 69. I but 69, 3—4 o 6' uvv 'ApTtijStivos Trapuyfvn^fvos €Tt vvktus ov(ttis npos tov Apra^ep^rji/ 
€<pT]iTf Aapflov Tov uSfX<^oi' ai'Tov 0oWa -yfyorfVot rnu irnTpoi Ka\ Tqu /iatriXfuif ft? favTov Tteptanat'. 
(TvvflioCXfV'JfV ovv ovToi TTpo TOV KaTii(T)((ii' fKf'iVQv TTjV (^pxtft^ (TKoneif OTTws p-v} ooiXfvtT'j oia pauvpinv 
aWa l:iacTi\fv<TT] tov (jiovia tov narpos TLpioprjaapfvoi' (nrjyydXaTtt fi' niVw trvfepyois TTopi^fadni Tovi 

Sopvpopovs ToO (iaai\(a>i. But this too, in spite of some resemblances, seems to suit Fr. 15 
less well than does 69. i. 

The plot of Artabanus is also described by Ctesias Frs. 29-30 'ApT('mams fit peyn nnpa 

Sfp^Ti ^vfiipfvns p(T ' AfTirpapiTOv tov fi'i'ou;(Oi' Km aiiTov piya 8vyapii>i:v jSovXtvovTOL avfXdv Aep^rjv, 

Ka\ avaipov<Ti ktX. This is evidently one of the ultimate sources of Diodorus' statement, 
which in any case must be derived (with some variations, if our explanation of Fr. 15 is 
correct) from Ephorus, who was probably responsible for the change of 'Aawpap'iTi^s to Mi6pi- 
iaTns : cf. the variation between Justin's Bacabasus (from Ephorus or Dinon ?) and Ctesias' 
^Uyniivioi (Fr. 30), each representing the Persian name Bagabukhs/ia (cf. Gilmore, ad he), 
the subsequent betrayer of Artabanus to Artaxerxes. 

121. ]ii>v is probably a participle, [r^yfpav] av is possible; but Artabanus himself, not 
Artaxerxes, was in command of the Sopvcjyopoi : cf. the previous n. 

fTvyxa[v(v: cf. 1. 178 ]ri7^[;^ni' .? A foodness for Tvyxi'wdv characterizes 842; cf. Part 
V. 124. 

123. [npa in]v : cf. 1. 125 npa cf and the same contrast in 842. x. 2. 

128— g. avflKOH-o-.^To Trjv ....]. ii* : cf. Diod. /. r. avaKoivaadptvos St TfjV inifiojiXTjv and 
842. i. 3 Koivoi(Ttip(voi . , . TTf/jt TOV TTpuypaTos. nvf]KnLvov \Trjt' l^ovXevlaiif can be read, but is 
unlikely, the middle being much commoner than the active. The letter before iv is y, |, cr, 
or T. n-pajlip would be the right length. 

133. Cf. II. 119 sqq., n. 

134—9. Cf. p. 102 and Diod. xi. 30. 4—5 pfTU Si tovto ck ttjs inapdas peTfo-TpaToneSfvaav 

(Is €Tfp0V TOTTOV (vOfTOJTfpOV npOS TTJV 6\otT)(€pii ftKrif, rjv yap €K p.fV TU)V d(^lO}V yfwXofpOi V^^rj\6s, fK 

hi TOiV fviji)Vvpii}V 6 'AacoTTOff TroTn/ic'y' tov 6' ava pt(Tov Tonov fnf'i)^(v q (TTpaTontdfta^ n€(f)paypivrj 

Tri cpvaft Kai Tats Tutv Tonaiv aarfiaXeiats, where tottos (cf. 11. 1 35 and 1 38) occurs thrice, 
though the context is different. <TTpaT[o\7T(8ov] is possible in 11. 136-7, and [a] rots] 7[o]n-oif 
(Bury) in II. 137-8, but hardly T[o|7ro]u in 11. 134-5. The dividing-point of the lines in this 
fragment is uncertain. 

140-5. Fr. 18 perhaps corresponds to Diod. xi. 57. 3 avrrj (Xerxes' sister) nvBopivr] t!]v 

TTapova'tau Toii QeptirTOK\€ovs r{K6(v tls tu i^ao-CXfta 7T(t6iur]t^ eaOrjTa Xal^evaa Ka\ fifTa 5uKpv(t}v tKcreie 
TOV dh€\ff>6if fTTtOeivai TipwpUiv tw QfptaTOKKd. ii>s 6' ou Trpoml^iv avTrj, nepi^ft . . . Lines I43~5 
can be restored to» a]Se'S[(fiov Tt^aptav (or KoXatriv) 7r/)oo-]<)fu{ai SffjiCTTOxAfi] (ii[f] Se [. The V 

in 1. 142, which is nearly certain, would then be expected to belong to SaKpCaiv rather than to 
iKeVeif, but the vestiges of the letter following it do not suit m, whereas e is possible. 
i.KeT(]ve [xXaiovaa tov a]8fX[(pov would be suitable, but the remaining two lines 140-1 present 
difficulties. r]}i[6fv in 1. 141 is unsatisfactory, for the preceding letter seems to be A, not o, and 
p[Xnii/i)< a-To]\T] is too short. If X[a/3oiiaa KOI iKtTe]v( be restored, ]Xi; must be the accusative 
plural of a word meaning 'clothes' or, as there seems to be none available, an adjective in 
agreement with e.g. IpaTin. The suggested correspondence with Diodorus therefore remains 
very uncertain, especially since the supposed X of ci]&X[</)oi/ can be a, and ]<Tfnr[ can be read 
for ]dnt{. 

178. ]rvy|ix''>': cf. 1. 12 1, n. 

192-4. If Tat [cKfivo^v TTpa^f[is (cf. 1. 2o) is right, Fr. 26 may well belong to the estimate 
of Themistocles. The doubtful e can be 1. EXjXi/o-if suggests that the corresponding 

passage in Diodorus is xi. 59. 2—3 wo-t' eixfiparov yivitrdat toIs''EXXi;o-(. Si6n(p oTav TO /jf'yf^os 


Tuiv (pya>v avTov Bfapi'icruifieii xrX., SO that Fr. 26 would seem to come immediately above 
Fr. 3 (cf. 11. 18 sqq.. n.) ; but the fibres of the verso do not suggest thi<, and ]\viTat is 
difficult in such a context. The onl)' alternative is lo-Pjxi'o-ai, with which reading Bury 

suggests irapa Tins E^^Krjcnv [ firj i<j])(V(rai ktA. 

200-2. None of the references to the Athenians in Diod. .\i. 5,5-70 corresponds verbally 
to this passage; but with the restoration ] .\6r]mi[ovs TrpocriSt'lxovTu it can well be connected 
with xi. 61.2 Sinnep cvroi fiev TrpoaeSe'^ai'TO tous 'ASTjfaiou? as cpiXovs ovras, 6 Si Kificov kt\. ^vovTo 
can, however, be read in place of ]xoi'to. 

213-14. rrjv or (fi" can be read. For (8a>K[e . . . x<^p('v as a possible reference to 
Xerxes' presents to Themistocles cf. Thuc. i. 138. 5 ravTtjs yap ^p^e rfjs x'^P"^, Sovtos 

/SacriXf'ms, and Died. xi. 57- 7 f^^PW"''''^ ^' "i'™ wdXfts Tpeh . . . .\dp.\j/aKoii Se Apnf\6cj>VTni/ exoi'(rav 

xapav TToXXi'ji'. But the words might come in many other contexts, e.g. Cimon's distribution 
of land in Thrace to the Athenians ; cf. Plut. Cimon 7 t^v hi x^^pav . . . -n-api^wM toU '\6iii>aiois, 

and Diod. xi. 60. 2 Ka\ Kriffrrjv 'ABrjvaiov KaTdtTTi^aas KnTeKXrjpovxrjar^ ttjv xotpfii* (cf. p. 103). 

218. ]i8wv [: cf. 11. 237-9, "• 

219. ]<poLv[ : Fr. 32 does not seem to be connected with any of the references to the 
Phoenicians in Diod. xi. 

223. Perhaps ] A6ri[vnioi in some form; cf. 1. 201. 

228-30. The mention of the Pelasgians and Ka]Ta(f>vy[^ ? suggests that Fr. 35 refers to 
Scyros and Cimon's discovery of the bones of Theseus, who took refuge there ; cf. 11. 49- 
51, n., and p. 100. 

237-9. Cf. p. 99 and Diod. xi. 59. 1-2 (Themistocles) rls yap erepos . . . rnis ISiais 

TTpd^iaiv u(pei\€To Tijs 'S.ndpTTjs ravrrjv Trjtf oo^ai' J TLVa d* tiXKov [{TTOpriKaptv pta irpa^et TTotijacwTa 
difViyKfLV avTuv piv tojv ijyepdviav^ Tr}v 5e noXiu twv 'EWTjiftSwi' TroXfui^, tovs 5* "EWrjvas twv ^ap[:ittpti}t' ; 

The fact that iav was either actually or approximately the end of a sentence, as is shown by 
the paragraphus, renders the connexion of that passage with Fr. 38 very probable. Bury 

suggests Sojj^oi' \tis &f TO Kona fK|rei[(Of irpaTTuiv piai\ ■npa^'^it ... It is tempting also 10 

connect with this fragment Fr. 32, where EXXt;i']i8mv can be restored in 1. 218, and 
Fr. 39, where iroKiy twv EX|[Xi)wSmi/ is possible in 1. 241 ; but the other lines in those two 
fragments do not harmonize easily with either that context or each other. 

241-2. Cf. the previous n. There is a slight blank space between 01 and av in 1. 242, 
which, however, is not fatal to Ei>3]omc, and with rav EXjXrjvav in 1. 241 there might possibly 
be a reference to the expedition of Cimon against Carystus in Euboea (Thuc. i. 98. 3 ; 
cf. pp. loo-i), which was presumably mentioned by PIphorus. 

246-8. There is a possible connexion with Diod. xi. 65. 4 /('XXwi/ S' oiV wraiv a-ufi)i.dx<oi/ 
(prjpia Tmv intKiwpoiipTwv Karn KpdTos ri\aaiw (sc. the Myceneans), or better widi .\i. 56. 7 
Kopilfif TavTTjv €771 aTTijvqs KCKpu^p.ifTjv Kti\ To}V uTTut'Twi'Tuiv prjtiva TTvXvTTpaypovui' pTjSk Kar' U^j/lV 
dnavTria-aL Tjj aynpivy (Lysilhides' device for the introduction of Themistocles to Xerxes ; 
cf. p. 99); but if so, Diodorus' version is longer. 

252-4. Possibly (rMTn]||o[9 he ApxiSapos o] | /3o[(TiXeiJf tois <n^eo-lVi,[/to(Ti : cf. Diod. xi. 63. 7 
TOVTOv Tov Tponaf oi TT€pt\(i(pO(VTfs eaw^Tjaat', ovy <Tvt^Td^as 6 ^actXfVS ^Apx^Sapos 7rap€(7K€vd^eTo 

T!o\epeiv TOLs (i^ftTTTj/cdo-i. But between 11. 253 and 254 is a spot of ink which, if not 
accidental, may belong to a paragraphus, implying a change of sentence, and yn[ can be 
read for tj)[. 

255. tifpyfTclv, eifpyiTrjs, and iifpyenla occur several times in Diod. xi, but the rest of 
Fr. 44 does not suit the context of any of those passages. 

257. ]a(TD-y[: perhaps ]nf i'7r[o. 

267-9. Fr. 48 exactly suits Diod. xi. 62. 3 rajus €X[of fw neXnyft] avh[po>p TT\jjdnvaas p(]y[n, 

Irom the metrical inscription concerning Cimon's victories, which is in any case probably 
iiuotcd from Ephorus; cf. 11. 62-76, n. But the fragment is too small to be identified with 

1610. EPHORUS, XII {OR AY) 127 

certainty, and in 1. 269 -it can be read in place of -y. Another possible parallel is xi. 54. 4 

Uava-avias }iiv Kpivas irpohihovai to\)% EXAt/z^qs e^ijXcoae tijp idi'a^ ^nt(:io\r}v SepKTToKXd Kin napeKuXeae. 

7-o]uf EA[Xr;rns- Tr)v iSiiw b^rjXwaas \vou\d account for 11. 267-8, and 1>'[ (or l77[) might belong to 
fntffoXi^v or a synonym for it, or to 7i[apfKii\((rf. 

282-4. Fr- 5.3 's to be combined with Frs. 9+ 10. i, though not actually joining them, 
and belongs to 11. 67-9 ; cf. 11. 66-g, n. The fibres on the verso harmonize excellently with 
those of Fr. 10, and the vestiges in 1. 284 can be the top o^ ■!Tu{paTax[6(ia-]us). 


Fr. I i8-6 X 26-5 cm. Early third century. 

These seventy fragments of a work on literary criticism, evidently composed 
by a grammarian, were found with 1610, &c. The largest piece, Fr. i, contains 
after a few letters from the ends of lines four nearly complete columns, while the 
other pieces are much smaller; about 130 lines in ail are complete or can be 
restored. Various literary topics, which have no apparent connexion with each 
other, are discussed, being illustrated by frequent quotations from lost or (in 
two cases) extant works — a circumstance which lends the papyrus considerable 
interest. The two sections of which the beginnings are preserved (11. 3(S and loi) 
both commence with on, so that probably the text is a series of extracts from 
a longer work. 

In Fr. I 11. 28-37 give the conclusion of a discussion of a contest of come- 
dies and of the number of the judges. There is perhaps a contrast drawn 
between the practice of the writer's own day and that of earlier times, and 
the Bacchac of Lysippus and nXoCrot of Cratinus are cited as authorities for 
a number (apparently that of the xpirai) being five ; but the context is obscure 
in several points ; cf. 11. 30, "3,^, nn. 

The next section (11. 38-100), which is practically complete, is mainly 
concerned with Caeneus, the mythical king of the Lapithae, who was first a 
woman, but was changed into a man by Poseidon, and rendered invulnerable, 
then incurred the enmity of Zeus by making his subjects worship his spear 
instead of the gods, and was ultimately buried alive by the Centaurs. The explana- 
tion of Caeneus' spear, which became proverbial, is given in connexion with 
a reference to it in Book ii of Theophrastus' WtpX iBaa-iXeia^ (11. 38-46), the 
whole story of Caeneus being related in an extract from Acusilaus of Argos, 
an earl}^ writer on mythology who was probably older than Herodotus (11. 55-83). 
Since the thirty-one extant fragments of Acusilaus (FHG. i. 100-3) contain 
hardly any professed quotations of his actual words, the papyrus for the first 
time affords an opportunity of estimating the character of that author's loropia 
or yevea\oy[ai.. The dialect proves to be in the main Ionic, as had generally 
been surmised, although no trace of it has been preserved in the extant 


fragments ; and the style is decidedly primitive. A Doric form of the aorist 
infinitive, T(Kiv, is found in 1. 59, and a curious expression, fxaXiara xp-qijidroiv, 
occurs in 11. 67-8. The influence of Acusilaus' version of the Caeneus legend is 
now traceable in scholia on Homer and ApoUonius Rhodius, which may 
have derived their knowledge of the passage through our author ; cf. 1. 56, n. 
A rather naive remark of the ancient logographer, that it was not Upov for 
gods to bear children by mortals, leads our author first to the citation of 
two lines from the 'AAK/ie'&);' 6 oia Kop[v6ov of Euripides, spoken by Apollo, 
which illustrated this subject, and later to a short discussion of it, the last four 
lines being fragmentary (11. <S5-ioo). 

In the third section (11. iot— 20) the first four lines are fragmentary, the 
ends of lines are missing throughout, and the conclusion is not reached, 
so that the reconstruction is somewhat difficult. The subject is the various 
persons called Thucydides, of whom three are distinguished, the politician (son 
of Melesias and father of Stephanus), the historian (son of Olorus), and the 
Pharsalian, as in Marcellinus' life of the historian. Polemon's treatise Uepl axpo- 
TToXfoos, which is known from Marcellinus to have discussed the second and third 
Thucydides, is here mentioned with reference to the first, apparently as the 
authority for a statement based on epigraphic evidence that he was the father 
of Stephanus, which is to be connected with an extant quotation from another 
work of Polemon (11. loi-i i, n.). In confirmation of the paternity of Stephanus, 
which seems to have been disputed, a passage from the Mcno of Plato is quoted, 
and Fr. i breaks oft" where the writer was about to add fresh evidence on the 
point from a lost comedy, the lapetiis of Hermippus. 

The order of the smaller fragments is quite uncertain except in a few 
instances. Fr. 3. i is concerned with a fiopewi ittuos, two lines from the beginning 
of the Ompliale of Ion being quoted as an illustration (11. 121-7), but how the 
subject was introduced does not appear. The difficulty, whatever it was, is 
stated to have been solved by Mnaseas of Patara in his work ITept yj)-r\(TpS>v 
(11. 128-30). Fr. 4 is concerned with a female character in epic poetry (Penthe- 
silea?), part of a hexameter line referring to her being cited (11. 146-7), besides 
two mentions of her by authors whose names are imperfectly preserved, one of 
them being perhaps Arctinus, who wrote the Actliiopis (11. 148-52). Frs. 5, 6, 
and 43 aie to be combined, as appears partly from external evidence, partly 
from the resulting satisfactory restoration of 11. 160-4. The main subject of 
this .'^ection, of which the beginning and end are not preserved, is the authorship 
of a celebrated ancient ode to Pallas. The first thiee words of this ode TlaAAciSa 
■nipaiiioXw hnvav were quoted by Aristophanes in 1. 967 of the Clouds, and from 
the extant rather confused scholia on that passage and another in Aristides it is 


known that according to Eratosthenes Phrynichus (i. e. the comic poet) attributed 
the authorship of the ode to Lamprocles, an early Athenian dithyrambic poet, 
while others assigned the ode to Stesichorus. Our author, who refers to an in- 
conclusive discussion of the claims of Lamprocles and Stesichorus by Chamaeleon 
(a disciple of Aristotle), and possibly, but by no means certainly, mentions Erato- 
sthenes (11. 158-9, n.), also adduces the evidence of Phrynichus in favour of 
Lamprocles as the author, and quotes the passage in Aristophanes (11. 160-76). 

Little can be made of the remaining fragments. There is probably a 
reference in F"r. 8. ii to Hellanicus on KrCam (II. 212-14, n.) ; but the context is 
obscure. Fr. 9, which is more considerable, relates to a person with a name 
beginning with probably A or A and ending in -Stjjuoj (e. g. Aristodemus), who, 
after adventures in which the Naxians and Thracians were apparently concerned, 
was carried off and put to death after a trial by the Parians (11. 218-28). The 
Orestes of Theodectes (?) is quoted in Fr. 1 7, and apparently a play of Lysippus 
in Fr, 21, while Fr. 16 perhaps has another reference to the Ompltale of Ion, and 
Fr. 14 possibly mentions Simonides. Other proper names which occur are A<7ot)[ 
(!. 247, n.), Lycia or the Lycians (1. 251), Odysseus (1. 272, perhaps in connexion 
with his descent to Hades), and Ptolemaeus (possibly Ptol. Philopator or Phila- 
delphus ; 11. 369-70, n.). The names of the grammarians Aristarchus and 
Didymus can be restored in 11. 231 and 283 respectively, but in neither place 
with any confidence. That Frs. 31-a, 42, 44-5, 63-5, and 68 belong to 1611 
is not at all certain. All the fragments belong to the middles of columns, except 
Fr. I and where it is otherwise stated. 

The handwriting is a small neat uncial closely resembling that of 1012, a 
treatise on literary composition, written soon after A. D. 205 (Part vii, Plate iv). 
1611 also probably belongs to the first two or three decades of the third century, 
and is approximately contemporary with 1610, of which the script is similar, but 
larger. The columns are short, consisting of 24 or 25 lines of 14-20 letters, 
generally about 17. The end of a section is marked in 1. 37 by a coronis, which 
is employed after 1. 115 and probably 1. 138 to divide a quotation from the main 
text. Paragraph! also occur after 11. 90 (where it is misplaced), 165, 214, and 231 
to indicate quotations. Strokes against the margin of 11. 83-4 call attention to 
the recommencement of the author's commentary at the end of the extract from 
Acusilaus, of which the beginning is distinguished by the sign )^ (1. 56, n.). The 
obelus against 1. 116 apparently also indicates a quotation, and the two flourishes 
after 1. 138 seem to be merely supplementary to the neighbouring coronis. High 
stops were used, but not at all regularly ; one doubtful instance of a stop in the 
middle position occurs in 1. 442. Occasional marks of elision and quantity and 
accents are found in the poetical quotations (11. 91 and 127), and there are some 



diaereses over i and v. An abbreviation, k for Kai, is used in 1. ai6. Iota 
adscript was not infrequently omitted by the first hand, but when ignored was 
inserted by a contemporary corrector, who might even be the same scribe. The 
insertion, however, of two words omitted in 1. 59 and similar additions of omitted 
letters in 11. 281, 338, and 350 all seem to be in a second hand, especially the 
cursively written € above 1. 281 ; in 11. 169 and 223 the alterations are most 
probably due to the first hand. The revision of the papyrus was in any case 
not very thorough, and several small mistakes remain uncorrected, 11. 45 for on, 
46 a^wv for alitor, 57 Xlocnhatv for Yloanh^wv, 61 avrov for avT-qv, 80 opuov for op0iov, 
84 Ti for TO, 91 077' for OTTO, 107 the apparent omission of koAov after Ko[aA«;/ov, 127 
aiviTUi for dverai, 222 jxtdiKav for iieOr^Kav: cf. also 11. 123, 146, and 172-3, nn. 

The date of the papyrus itself excludes a later period than about the middle 
of the second century for the composition of the work from which 1611 was 
excerpted. On the other hand a date not earlier than 200 U.C. is indicated by 
the references to (i) Polemon, who was a Delphic -npo^n'os in 177-6 B.C. 
(Susemihl, Gcsch. d. Alex. Lit. i. 667^^-), and according to Suidas a contem- 
porary of Ptolemy Epiphanes (204-181 B.C.), and (2) Mnaseas, who according 
to an ambiguously worded statement of Suidas was a pupil of Eratosthenes. 
The striking resemblance between the discussion of the authorship of the ode 
to Pallas in 1611 and the views attributed to Eratosthenes by the scholia on 
Aristophanes' Clouds (^6"] (cf. pp. 128-9 and 11. 162-5, n.) at first sight suggests that 
the papyrus may consist of extracts from Eratosthenes' clebrated work Tlepl 
apxaias KoipnohLas. The first of the three sections in Fr. i seems to be concerned 
with the Old Comedy; the second, about Caeneus, deals with a subject which 
was the basis of plays by two writers of the Middle Comedy, Antiphanes 
and Araros, and may well have been utilized earlier, while the third, about 
Thucydides, leads up to a quotation from Hermippus. The two statements 
attributed to Asclepiades of Myrlea by Suidas that Polemon (i) synchronized 
with Aristophanes of Byzantium (the successor of Eratosthenes as librarian at 
Alexandria ; cf. p. 131) and(2) was the disciple of Panaetius (about 180-110 B.C.) 
arc scarcely consistent with each other, and the second has usually been regarded 
as corrupt ; cf. Susemihl, i. 666'^^. Since Eratosthenes according to Suidas 
was born in 276-2 B.C. and died at the age of eighty in the reign of Ptolemy 
Epiphanes, it is possible that his Ylfpl apxaCa^ KuiixiaUai quoted Polemon's earlier 
works. The suggestion of Knaack (Pauly-Wissowa, Rcalenc. vi. 360), that the 
treatise on Comedy was written in the early part of Eratosthenes' life before 
he left Athens for Alexandria, is not based on any evidence, and Theophrastus, 
a writer utilized in it (cf. Strecker, De Lycophrone, Eiiplironio, Eratostlicnc, &c., 
Fr. 75), is also quoted in 1611 (I. 38). Polemon, who joined the Pergamene 


school, wrote a treatise against Eratosthenes (Suscmihl, i. 670'^^) Wfpl t?]? 
^ \d-i]V))ci.v 'Eparocrdh'ovi eTrtSiz/atab', denying (probably ironically) that Eratosthenes 
had ever been at Athens, and two of the six extant fragments of that treatise 
(Frs. 47-8, FHG. iii. 130) apparently refer to statements in the Tlepl apxaia? 
KtojuwStas, which was therefore earlier than Polemon's attack on Eratosthenes. 
It is, however, not quite clear that Polemon is mentioned in 1611 with approval 
(cf. 11. loi-ii, n.), and the controversy between him and Eratosthenes may have 
been begun by the latter. As regards Mnaseas, whose date mainly depends on 
that of Eratosthenes, the fact that he is quoted with approval in 1611 (1. 138) 
is not inconsistent with the hypothesis that he was the author's own pupil ; 
but it is not quite certain whether Suidas meant to call Mnaseas the pupil of 
Eratosthenes or of Aristarchus. The latter interpretation, which would of course 
be fatal to the view that 1611 was the work of Eratosthenes, is rejected by 
Susemihl, i. 679^"^ The date of Eratosthenes' death (i 96-4 B. C), which is accepted 
by Susemihl mainly on the evidence of Suidas, thus leaves a narrow margin of 
time available to which the ITepl apx- kco/^. could be assigned on the assumption 
that 1611 belongs to that work ; but most of this margin tends to disappear, 
if with Knaack (Pauly-Wissowa, Rcahnc. vi. 359) Strabo's statement that 
Eratosthenes was the pupil of Zeno of Citium be accepted ; for Eratosthenes' 
birth and death must then be put back about ten years earlier than Suidas' dates. 
1241, which settles the order of the Alexandrian librarians from Apollonius 
Rhodius to Cydas and rectifies some errors of Suidas, is apt to be mistaken 
or corrupt in its chronological references to the Ptolemies with whom the 
librarians were associated. But the position assigned to Eratosthenes, next 
after Apollonius Rhodius and before Aristophanes of Byzantium, whose suc- 
cessors were (omitting koi 'Apioropxob' in 1241. ii. S as an interpolation) Apollonius 
the (lhoypa.(Po9 and Aristarchus of Samothrace, suggests that Eratosthenes' literary 
activity hardly continued as late as the reign of Epiphanes, and if the corrupt 
<l>tXo7rdropos in 1241. ii. 15 is corrected to 'E-nKpavovs instead of (ttAofx^jropoy, as is 
possible, Eratosthenes' period of office at Alexandria must have ended soon 
after the accession of Philopator in 222-1 B.C. Hence, though the difficulty 
caused by the mention of Mnaseas can be got over, that caused by the reference 
to Polemon Uepl aKpoirt'XeMs is a much more serious and probably insuperable 
obstacle to the attribution of 1611 to Eratosthenes Uepl apxalas xco/^MOtas. More- 
over it is possible that the scholium on Aristophanes which gives Lampi'ocles' 
version of the ode to Pallas is nearer to Eratosthenes' actual words than are the 
other scholia, which agree with 1611 in quoting Phrynichus' version (cf. II. 162- 
5, n.), and the ode to Pallas was evidently the subject of much discussion. 
Lastly, in 1611 the sections about Caeneus and Thucydides are not, so far 

K 2 


as can be judged, specially concerned with Old Comedy, so that a later author 
than Eratosthenes is distinctly more probable. Eratosthenes may even have been 
referred to by name in the discussion of the ode to Pallas (11. 158-9, n.), and he is 
in any case likely to have been the main source of that section of the papyrus. 

The hypothesis of the Eratosthenean authorship of the section concerning 
the ode to Pallas might be combined with the attribution of other sections 
to different grammarians ; but though it is not certain that the various extracts 
are all from the same work, there is more to be said in favour of the view that 
they come from one of the niisccllanies {(Jv\j.\i.iKTa), which were composed by several 
grammarians of the Alexandrine and Roman periods. Of these miscellanies the 
earliest known is by Callistratus the pupil of Aristophanes of Byzantium and 
composer also of a work FTpos toj d^frjjo-ety (sc. of Aristarchus) and commentaries 
on Cratinus and Aristophanes; cf. Athen. iii. 125 c-d, where the 7th book is 
quoted, R. Schmidt, De Callistrato Aristophaneo, and Susemihl, i. 450. Another 
composer of miscellanies was Herodicus 6 KpanjTeioj, who is chiefly known from 
quotations in Athenaeus from his three works, ITpoj rov <i>L\oij(aKpdT)-]i;, 2i////xiKra 
v-KonvriixaTa (Athen. viii. 340 e), and Kwixuhovnevoi (in at least six books). His 
date is disputed : Gudeman in Pauly-VVissowa, Realenc. viii. 974, assigns him 
to the first century B.C. That the celebrated Didymus, who died in the reign of 
Augustus, wrote 1v\i.\).iKTa is attested by the Etym. Giid. 124. 2, where it is 
stated that Alexion (a first-century grammarian of Alexandria) made an epitome 
of them. The '2v)j.iu.KTa are generally identified with the ^vix-noaiaKo. of Didymus, 
which were also of a miscellaneous character ; cf. Cohn in Pauly-Wissowa, 
Realenc. v. 470. Suidas', list of the works of Seleucus, the Homeric critic, who 
lived in the time of Tiberius (Gudeman, I.e.), ends xai a\Xa ai^/n/xura, and Seleucus 
iv Ei'iinLKToii is cited by Schol. Apoll. Rhod. ii. 1055. Pamphila, who lived 
in the reign of Nero, wrote according to Photius (Cod. 175) thirty-three books 
(TVjxfxiKTuiv ia-TopLK&v vTToixvr)iJ.dT(iiv Ao'yoi, which were largely used by Aulus Gellius 
and Diogenes Laertius. 1611 may well belong to one of these five writers of 
miscellanies ; but Didymus has the strongest claim to be regarded as the author, 
since in his case the existence of an epitome is also attested. In the absence 
of any clear reference to grammarians later than the second century 13. c. 
Callistratus is more suitable as the composer than Herodicus, Seleucus, or 
Pamphilus, and 1611 seems to be somewhat earlier than 1012, which mentions 
both Didymus and Caecilius Calactinus, and was not composed before A. D. 50. 
Dionysius 6 juovtriKo's, who is known to have discussed the authorship of the ode 
to Pallas (cf. 11. 162-5, n-) and lived in the time of Hadrian, is not at all likely 
to be the author of 1611, for his known works are all concerned with juouo-iki/ 
in some form or (if he was identical with Aelius Dionysius) lexicography, and 



the Caeneus and Thucydides sections are not at all appropriate to him. Rufus, 
who is coupled with Dionysius (cf. 11. 162-5, n.) and is thought to have 
epitomized his Movctlki) to-Topta (cf. Cohn in Pauly-Wissovva, Rcalcnc. v. 9*16), 
is, apart from other considerations, unsuitable on account of his date, which 
is probably third century or later. 

We are indebted to Mr. T. W. Allen for several suggestions in the recon- 
struction of this papyrus. 

Fr. I 

Col. i. 

Col. ii. 

5 lines 

3 lines lost 


[• • •]^« • [ 

[. . .]? arTi[ ]a£ 



[. . .Joe vvv a . epa . t] 


fio.^ Sv otray Tfrra 


/3[a]y Kai tovs Kpira? Si^ 


Xov ovTcoi TiTTapa 

10 ]cr 

KovTa[o\9 S ev 



BaK)(ai? e o/ioims Se 


Kai KpaTivoi (.v FlXov 

12 lines 

Tois Xeyet 



[o]ti to vapa ©iocfypacrTcoi 
X€[yo]//6i'Oj' ef TcoL Sfv 

40 Tepcoi Uepi /Sao-iXeiay 
nepi Tov Kaivicos So 
paros TOVTO Kai ovTOi 
iCTTiv coy aXrjdo)? Tcoi 
aKrjiTTpaii ^acriXivcov 

45 0(11) Tcoi Sopari KaOamp 
Kaii'ivs a^iof yap 
[(cpajreif Kawevs tcoi 
[Sop]aTi aXX 0V)(jL tcol (T<r] 

Col. iii. 

[7r]r/3(B( KadaTr[ip 01 7r]|o 
50 [AXoJi fiacriXii^ [fcrcpaXt] ?] I ov 

[yap] iSvvaTo 7r[poy ?] | ri/y 

[vn A\KovaiXaov \tov\ I Ap 

yeiov KaTaX[eyofifi'ris] 

LO-Topia's anoXvaa[i 
55 Xeyei yap nfpi Kaivea [ 
y ovTQis KaivrjL Se ttji 

EXarov mcryfrai Iloai 

Sail' (Trara ov yap rji/ 

TtKf'v 0\JT 

avTois lipov naiSas [TtT| «^ e 
6o Kiivov ovT e^ aXXov ov 

Sfi'o? notft avTov Flo 

(r€[i]5e(or avSpa arpco 

[to]!/ La-)(yv e^oi'Ta [p-e]yi- 

[<t]7[7;]i/ tcov avOpconaiv 
65 Toov TOTe Kai on m av 

tov KevTOirj aiSrjpcoi. 

7] x^Xkoji TjXia-KeTO fia 

XiaTa ^prj/xaTCoy Kai 

yiyviTai fiaaiXivs ov 
70 Toy AaiTiOtcov Kai T019 

Kevravpois noXefiee 

aKe iWdTa arrjaas aKov 

59. T£ of TtKcV corr. from ou. 

of fTTfira added later. 


Col. iv. Col. V. 

[tlov iv ayopai tovtcoi ?] [fiiuov ] 

[KeXiVii 6vnv ? diOL\ Xi[ 

75 (71 S OVK rji .[ Kai} Ta .[ 

Zev9 tSwy ai'r[o»' Ta\vTa loo )(ei' [ 

TTOiovvTa anetXct Kai • , 


e<i>op^ia. Tov, R^vravpov, 8r^ .[.... Kai} HoXe^wy 

KaKiivoL avTov Kara . „ 

ei' run [ ". llipi aKpono 

8o KOTTTovcriv opuov Kara . „, 

'^ Xicos o[ 

yny Kat avatOiv nerpriy 

' ' 105 avaypaipy 

€inTi6ei<nv aniia km ,, •. ,. ^ 

■^ Tov MfXTjcriov [vioi' Zre 

, anodt'via-Kei- tovt ilcrWiv . rr r \ / \ \ 

' ' '■ •' q)avov oe tov ls.O\a.Xijiov (^KaXov) 

, yap icrcos Ti Tcoi Sopari ap ' -, 

' ' "^ r / fierov Trarepa [ovroi r 

8^ yeiu Toy Kawea Svva j, ,. 

'^ oe TOV cuyypacplfa /lev 

Tat Se Sea tovtov Kai to j /->^ r -> 

no <pa(Tty UXopov vt[ov Tpi f 

nap EvpimSrt'- iv AXku€ . ^ r ^ 

\ TOV oe TOV 9apa[aXiov 

(ovi TCOL Sia K\o]pii'9ov r _, 

 ' iTtpi fjLiv ovv Toy [tov ATe 

XiyOUil'OV VTTO 6(0V , ' T-^^ 

' "^ (pavov naTpos K[ai llXa 

00 Kayco uev areKvos eye , . ,, 

' ' ' ^ Tcov q>t]cnv ev t[q>l me 

vouriv Keivni an- A\ r _ 

'^ ' 115 VCOVl OVTCOS [OTl &0V 

KfieoavL S eTfKe SlSv > 

/xa TeKva irapOevo'i - KvSiSrjs Svo [vei^ eOpe 

eav Tis irjTrf- nco? rj V^f" MeXi](na[v Kat ^re 

95 TOV Oeov pei^ii ayovo^ <f>avov tovtov[9 enaiSev 

eaTiv Sia tov irpoxeL <^«»'" '^a' Epfiin[Tro9 woi 

120 rjTrji ev Iane[Ta)t Xeyei 

87. K of oKKiifaipt cori'. 

Fr. 2 (tops of cols.?). Fr. 3. 

Col. i. Col. ii. 135 ... _/[ 

[. .] ev TTjL Ia)vo[s Ofi(p]a. 13' [ ov 7rar[ 

Xr; /car ap^r]v Xeyojie voi[ Se Oa[ 

[v]os HpaKXeovi ^opeio^ now . [ j p.eyaX[ 

[iwJTToy ovTcoi opcov fiiv p . a .[ J^ « ^ 

125 {n]^n HeXono? e^eXav ... 



[vollXfU EpflT] fiopilOV 

[tTTJTTOf ati'iTai 8 oSoi 
[SiaX]€\vKf S avTO Mfa 
[a(as o ?] IIaTaf)[iVS i\Y Ta)[(] 
130 [Tlipl ■)(\pri(TiJ.(^v 

Fr. 4. 

Col. i. 

Col. ii. 

M4 > 

145 5^[- -M ««' ? 

(TV yvvai Tivos €yyoi'[oy 

^FXl^]"' eif^at Kai T[a e 
Ijyy Kai (uy €/C7i0eT[ai .dp 

150 [ror] Oavaroy Kai o [. . 
[. . •]Sr]9 Se Tov Tp[. . 

«"] tH « [-I'^L 

Fr. 6. 

140 TToy ttotl 
Oapcrei 7f^ 

OS €/i[ 

9 f^![ 

Frs. 5 + 43- 

155 cny[ 


160 raiy ^\pv\v\iyo'i 


7Ta[A]Aa[5a] Tr(p\p-ino\iv 
162 a [<X7;(^](B 7r[oXe//a5o 

Fr. 7. 

Col. i. 
\k6\v ayvav 7T[ai5a /It 
[oy] fieyaXov 8\afiacniT 
165 TTOi/ ofro) irapa^TTOUL ? 
Sianopovai yap ov[k 
Xiyoi 7r[e]p£ t[oi']7<o»' /ca 
[6]aTr€p XafiaiXecou no 

TipOV TTOTe XTT][aL]-)(_OpOV 

170 ea'Tiv 7] Aafj.TTpoKX[E 

[o]vs K[anr](p^i^ tov ^pvi'[i 
[Xov Aa{i\n-poKXfi fj.a[dT](Tr]) ? 
[MiSooyoi ?] npocrvipiov 
\tos Kai ? A^pKTTOcpavy]^ 
175 [^6 ? 7ra/3a7r]o(€( Xeyccr 

[ITaXXa^a] 77-[€]/3a-«[7r]o!(Xti') 
end of col. 
169. vr of 2Tr)[<ri]:(opou corr. from s. 

Col. ii. 

[•] • ."[ 

TO a [ 

180 a/i0[ 



OCTOt' [ 

185 x«n 

€l;/3C0 . [ 

Xiafy a)[oTe ? 
eii'ai TOV [ 
picrfiof . [ 
190 (i ye Kffi [ 

Kai fyl 

end of col. 


Xa Kai 



]a)y TTi/p 


o]v fioyov 
]r]a'fu aX 



] • «<^r[- 




Fr. 8. 
Col. i. Col. ii. 

[. . .],v[ 

[. .]. ,r . [ 
210 xepe . [ 

Toi cry/i[ 

/?j(Di' 7r[ EWavi 

K09 S €v [rais E6ycoi' ? 

KTiaea-i [ 
215 Se 'n'ept[ 

206 ] . LTTOV [.] . poL K [ 

]yu [.]e (n//i[ 

Fr. 9. 

Na^[iot ? €1/ ? fxe 

223 Tatx[^ia)t ? 


jjLiQLKav a.[noKOfj.icra ? 

[/ijej/ojs]] ^f TOf A[pia-TO ? 
Sri/iov €is rrjv II[apov ? 
225 rf-TirnvTO Trepi Toi'r[coi' 
OL JJapiot Kai €19 Si[Ka 
CTTtjpioi^ eia-ayayovlTis 
aiTiKTiivav K[aL ? . . 
[ b? 5 fr [. . . . 

Fr. ID. 
230 5[ 


5 fj/ ^ T/3[ 

Sicov ex[ 
/)[o]y /cat Ac[ 
235 TW epv6[pai' 

ov ^(.VOV [ 

yap Tijy . . [ 

240 K av ilTTiV [ 

Fr. 13. 


260 ]^' aXX . [ 

]?' '?/'«^[ 
\ov vot[ 
"[tto Ta>v [ 
end of col. 

Fr. II. Fr. 12. 

] • [ [• •]""[ 

'\iyKri[. . . 250 fiovs o[ 

Trap ?]o(/zico[. . . . AvKi[ 

....]...[..] 6t[. ... re . [ 

245 . .Japis €o-xaro;[. . . . p(t>[ 

. . .]tov(tt]s r]Sova[i 1] ? ''' • [ 

aXy ?]rjSopas o Se Aaa-T][ 255 piX[ 
. . .]i [(T]TpaT€VOt 7rep[i . tK . [ 

end of col. [o]i . [ 

Fr. 14. 

]\a Tayfi[ 
65 n]pcoToi' [ 
jay Xa/3o[ 
]oyT<o a . [ 



Fr. 15. 

Fr. 16. 




] AtSov v[ 

(f>ri ?]o-£ Sf [""fp' .'' 

OS]y<T<T€VS . [ 

]r)9 Icov [ 

]Tr]aa) . [ 

]Xriu Ti[ 

]os- Ka[ 



Fr. 17. Fr. 18. Fr. 19. 

280 [QioSeK ?]T[rj]y S d' Of>i(TTr][ ]^rw[ ]t . l>[ 

285 ]tt(P<t[ ] Ka6 ^^l>[ 

] eiTi TTj[ 290 ]a^ia . [ 
]i/ k[ ]a/ias rrji 

end of col. end of col. 


] . 6-qV VTTO 

]iS[.]iioi 5[. 


Fr. 20. 

]?."" • [ 




Frs. 21+2 



TToy er — ] ciTcoy 

305 ]H\r] 
] TTV/) 

end of col. ? 

Fr. 25. 

[. . .] vna\[ 

[. . .]iTpOV [ 

TTaroi' Kai v\_ 

325 T- «yx.'?[ 

€1' roiy [ 
end of col. 

Fr. 29. 


]^/)0 . [ 

345 > 4 


360 ] . a7ro[ 

Fr. 26. 

ja? €7r[ 

1 ^ '^P[ 
330 lo yap . [ 

1 , OvXi^ 

end of col. 

Fr. 3Q. 
top of col. 

346 1 (7r7roA[ 
]A(i)"- <yT[ 

Fr. 34. 


Fr. 23. 

310 ]i;A[ 



3'5 M 

Fr. 27. 



335 ]'/^9[ 


Fr. 31. 

350 ] • ■r« • [ 



Fr. 35. 
top of col. 
366 ]? eAc[ 

] • '7^ r[ 

Fr. 24. 

320 ]« . [ 

Fr. 28. 


340 ]7-oi; J/ . . [ 
]j-at A(p[ 
end of col. 

Fr. 32. 

355 ] • <opi 

^y^x  [ 

Fr. 36. 

370 ] nTo\efj.[ai 

370. r of ITtoX. inserted. 


Fr. 37- 

Fr. 38. 

Fr. 39. 

Fr. 40. 

372 €.[ 

375 ]H 


]«'a 3^ 

> I ]5e(r[ 


Fr. 41. 

Fr. 42. 

Fr. 43- 

Fr. 44. 

385 ] • [■l-'f . [ 

] . yap VTTip^ 
390 ]oi'J'oo-t[ 

]•[ 395 

]"[ 396 If X7?[ 

]^ej'[ ]crro[ 

¥l[ ]■■[ 

Fr. 45. 

Fr. 46. 

Fr. 47- 

Fr. 48. 

Fr. 49 

400 ]to 


405 ]av[ 

406 ]. [ 


410 ]r)Tpi .[ 
end of col 

411 ]o- 

Fr. 50. 

Fr. 51. 

Fr. 52. 

Fr. 5^' 


416 ] .8o6[ 


]-[-K 420 


415 ]ai'4 
end of col. 

end of col. 

]o* TO Ao[ 
end of col. 

. r€(7a)(r[ 
snd of col. 

Fr. 54. 

Fr. 5.5. 

Fr. 56. 

Fr. 57. 

Fr. 58. 

422 ]r,[ 

]H 4 

23 ]//.[ 



428 ]»p . [ 

430 ]ee\[ 

Fr. 59- 

Fr. 60. 

Fr. 61. 

Fr. 63. 

Fr. 6^. 

432 ]. 7raA[ 

435 Ye- ■[ 

436 1" 

438 K 

440 ].iroL .[ 

Fr. 64. 

Fr. 65. 

Fr. 66. 

Fr. 67. 

Fr. 68. 

442 Jya/- o[ 
end of col. 

443 ]••!?[ 
end of col. 



445 ] • f[ 

1x4 ' 

]Y iTaT[ 


29— 3 '7. If (ii/nf ] »[. . .1)1' vvv a , fpit . ' ijiiat &i' livTas TeTTap^<i^s Km Toit Kjunii', S^Xov uvtus 

TeTTapaKoura, Ai<rimt[o]s &' iv BdK;(air e', ofioiais St Ka't KpaT'tvos (v IlXoijrois Ae'yci. 

' ... '-US being two, and the judges four", thus evidently forty; but Lysippusin the 
Bacchae says that they were five, and so does Cratinus in the nXoCroi.' 

38—97. [olri TO napa Oforppacrra) \f[y6^p(vov iv to) ii(vripa X\(p\ fiaaiXdai wfpi toC Kni«'w£ 
Sopams ToCro' ' Km oi'TOf (ariv as aXr/fiiat 6 tw aKijnrpai fiattiktiaiv, o{y) tm hopoTi KaBiiirtp " Kaii'tuf . 
u^i(!ii)v yap [Kpnlreii' 6 Kni«i;s tu [8o()]iiti, dXX' ovxi rm (TKi;[7r]rpw )tti5d7r[e,) oi 7r]o[XX()]i /ino-iXeif, 
ff(T^«iXi;' ?] oil fydpl eSwaro 7i[p6t f] T^r [tur' ' A ](coii(TiX(ioi; [toO] 'Apydov KaTaX[f yo/jfVijt] loropiaf 
(i/roXCo'o[i]. Xe'-yd yap nepl Kmvia iwtqis' ' KaivJ; 8i rr/ 'kXi'itov piayfrm noirfiS(i}iov. eneira, 
oil yap r)v niVoij ifpoi' TratSat t(K(v ovt f'f iKfivov ovt' (^ tiXXou oMefo's, Troift airijiy' noo-f[ij.Va)i' 
("I'fipn arpM Toll', la^fvv txovra [pflyi[(rlT[>;li/ Ttof uvBpwnuiv rdv TOTf, Ka'i ore tij aintiv KfVToit] (rtSr]pa 
5 Xa\Ku>, r;Xi'(TK<To /iaXiora xprifiaTwr. Ka\ ylyvtrai fiaaikfis oi>Tot haTTiBiinv Ka\ to'is KtvraiipoK 

■no\epU(TK€, firftra aTfjCTas aKOi'^riov in dyopa tovtid KfXeifi Bicii'? 6(o'ij(Ti 6' ovk ')( . [ itai?] 

Z(is ISoiv avT[o>' TalCrn TTOioivTa uweiXfi Ka\ ii^opfia tovs Kfvraipovs, KaKfimi alrov KaraKonrovfTiv 
op(6\ov Kara yrji Ka\ avaiBfv -nirpijv imTiBficTiv crrjpa Km nno6vjj<TK€i.' tovt f[(Tj™' yap laais t^o) tm 
SdpoTi iip\(iV rov Kaii'f'a. hvvaTai bk Sui tovtov Ka\ to jrap' EipiirlSr] iv 'A'KKpiavL tm 6(d K[o]pii'6oii 
Xeydpfi'OZ' imu Seov' 

* Kayo) p€v ar€Ki'Oi iyfvuptjv K(ivi]S anio^, 
*A\Kp€0)Vi fi' cTfKf dldvpa TiKva TTopOivos. 
iav Tis ^i]Tij TTwi i; toC 6f0v pci^is d'yowis icrriv, Sia rov TTpoKei[fiivov . . . 

' That what Theophrastus says in the second book Concerning Kingship about tlie 
spear of Caeneus is as follows. " And this is the king who really rules by his sceptre, not 
by his spear like Caeneus." For Caeneus claiming to govern by his spear, not by his sceptre 
as is the fashion of most kings, failed, because he had no power, according to the story related 
by Acusilaus the Argive, to release. He describes Caeneus as follows. " Caene daughter 
of Elatus was united to Poseidon ; afterwards, since it was impious for them to have 
children either by him or by any one else, Poseidon made her an invulnerable man, 
possessing the greatest strength of any person then living, and when any one stabbed him 
with iron or bronze, he was conquered most certainly of all. So Caeneus became king of 
the Lapithae, and waged war with the Centaurs. Afterwards he set up his javelin in the 
market-place and bade people sacrifice to it. But this was not (pleasing .?) to the gods, and 
Zeus seeing him doing this, threatened him and stirred up the Centaurs against him; and 
they cut him down upright below die ground, and put a mass of rock above as a tomb ; so 
he died." That is apparently what is meant by Caeneus ruling by a spear, and it also 
explains what is said by the god in Euripides' 'AX/c/i/cof d Sid Knpiv6ov " And I was without 
child by her, but she bare to Alcmaeon twin children, a virgin.'' If the inquiry is made 
how union with a god is without offspring, (it is shown) through the aforesaid . . .' 

I0I-20. on ov)( [ li^j; . [. . . . (cai ? IloXf'pmj'] iv tw ['. Hfpi dxpowdjAccos 

fif ] avaypa<p\ ] tov MfXr/cri'ou [vlov, 2T(^(pavov Si toO Ko[aXe'poD ^icaXoi;)]- 

fiivov TTmepa, [ovTOi?^ Si toi/ avyypa(l>[ia pel/] tpatriv "OXdpov Di[di', rpi .'jrox Si rov *ap(r[dXioi'. j 
jrepi fiiv oiv Tnv Ijoi 2Tc](/)di/ou Tiarplis k\ji\ IlXdJTWi/ <f>r]a\v iv r[a Mf ji/toM ovras' [' OTi ©oii]<ii8iSr;f 
Svu [iflf ?6p«]i//€i' MfXi/o-ia[i' Koi STejc^ai/of* ToiiToijj inatfifv]<Tfv.' Ka\ "Eppm\nos 6 TroijijTijs iv 
*Ia7rel Tw Xcyei . . . 

'That . . . and Polemon in the [.] book Concerning the Acropolis do not . . . Thucydides 
... the son of Melesias and father of Stephanus called the Stupid ; but ihey say that the 
historian was the son of Olorus, and a third was the Pharsalian. With regard to the father 


of Stephanus Plato also says in the Mem " That Thucydides brought up two sons, Melesias 
and Stephanus ; these he educated ". And Hermippus the poet in the lapetus says . . .' 

121—30. 1 6 eV tt; "iwi/o^y '0/i(^JaX,v Kar dp\TjV \(yufx(\vjos 'HpaK)i€ovs ^opstos [tTrlTTof ovras' 
* opuiv pep [vp^ liiKonos €^€Xai'[poJ;jfi', 
^Kppijf j36p€ioi' [iTrjrror'' a[t}i'frai d odos.' 
[StaXleXuKf 5* avTo Mfalcrfas 6 ?1 IlaTap\€vs (]v tw [rifpi ;^lp7/cr/ia)[t/ , . . 

' . . . the northern horse of Heracles mentioned at the beginning of the Omphale of Ion 
thus: "At length from the boundaries of Pelops we drive forth, O Hermes, the northern 
horse, and the road is finished." Mnaseas of Patara in his work Concerning Oracles has 
solved the difficulty . . .' 

146—52. ' . . . Km T\ (TV, yvvai, rivos e(«c))'oi'or et!;([fjui eivji ; ' 

Ka\ tFo f]^^?, Kai G)f (KTL6fj\ai ^ApKTt ?\t/os oXop avTr)\i tuiA Bavarov. Koi 6 \ p^s fit Tov 

Tp[. .].[... fV] t[^] (■ [.],a[. .]a[. . . 

' " . . . and thou, lady, from whom dost thou boast thy descent .' '' and so on, and that 
Arctinus relates her death in full, and des in the 5th book of . . .' 

160—76. ]raif <I>[pu]i'[i;(Of ] u^i;yo[ii]fifi/[or ]' ' na[X]Xd[Sa ■nepai'KoKiv KX;if]co 

okfpahoKfyiv ayvav Trfaifia Aiofl ptyoKov hUipaa nnnov ' ovTui 7rap«[rrotf i .n fitanopov(Tt yap oi'[< ojXt'yot 
f]pl Tfoulroji/, Ka\6\in€p XapaiXictiV, irinfpov TTorf ^Trj\(ji\)(6pov eVrti' ^ \ap-npOKMio\vi, K|^(Jt7rJ6p tov 
^pvv\i)(ov Aa/ijTpoKXfi p(ABr](rrj\ Mi'Swi'O? .^ ] irpouvfpovyrQi. koi ? ^ i^piCTTOfpdvrji [fie ^ napair^Hd Xiyuiv 
^ riaXXaSa] 7T[flj(rc[7rJo[Xti' htivdv ' . . . 

' . . . Phrynichus relating . . . '■ To Pallas destroyer of cities I call, to the sustainer of 
war, the pure, the child of great Zeus, the horsetamer " thus introduces (.') it. For not a few, 
like Chamaeleon, are in doubt whether this was formerly written by Stesichorus or by 
Lamprocles, though Phrynichus attributes it to Lamprocles the pupil of Midon {?). Aristo- 
phanes also introduces it saying "To Pallas destroyer of cities, the terrible" . . .' 

219—28. . . . Nd^[iot? ill /ie]i-ai;([fii'ia ? ] ''" ''^'' 6pn['<mi' J 

fit6(ri^<av. d\TTOKopi<Tdp .''jf roi hi tok ^ h\^ptaT6 ?]'5?;poi' fis rr]V n[dpo>' .'] jiTiaivro rrep'i tovt[(i)>'] 01 Tldpioi, 
Ka\ fif hi\Ka\rTTr^pwv Ufjayay6i>\i(<i\ dneKTeivav. 

' . . . the Naxians ... is a disputed frontier . . . the Thracians . . . released him. The 
Parians carried off Aristodemus to Pares and censured him for this, and afier bringing him 
to trial put him to death.' 

23-7. Fr. 26, where in 1. 329 ] (i Kp[iTai can be restored (cf. 11. 31-2), is perhaps to be 
placed at the bottom of Col. i, as Allen suggests. 

29. ]t aiiTi[ : the division of these letters is uncertain, rj can be read instead of i. 

30. jjf: (V can equally well be read. All that is visible before k is a spot of ink in 
about the middle of the line. ]civ is impossible, and other vowels are improbable. 

e . (pa . : except in pa, only the bottoms of the letters are preserved. The first seems 
to be f or o- and [1] may be lost between it and the second, which is rather more like f, 6, or o- 
than e.g. y or i, and does not come below the line as far as t usually does in this hand. The 
third must be e, o, or a-, and the last can be y, t], i[t], k, p, c, or n-. Cf. the next n. 

ripas : the first person is not found elsewhere in 1611, and ^^pas hvovras can hardly be 
right, though possibly the participle is to hs corrected to Xvoin-nt or 6(iaX)uoi'Tnr : cf. 1. 128 
[SialXfXi'Kf. The present active of Svfiu is very rare outside epic poetry, pa suits the vestiges 
very well ; the lacuna between these two broken letters could take [1], but not [ep]. As was 
suggested by Prof Rostowzew, it is better to divide 6d(o) ovras and regard i;/^«t . . . Kpiras as 


a quotation from a comedy. The preceding words can also be an iambic line, ending vm 

a( opai: Cf. also 11. 23-7, n. 

35. «: for 5 judges at contests of comedies cf. Schol. Ar. Birds 445 (Kpiuav Kpirm tow 

KUfttKov^, ol ^f 'Kopt^dvovres ras e ^l/i]<povs evdaifjiot'ovif, Hesych. TreVre KpiTai' toitovtoi To7i KwptKols 
iKpivov oil povoit ^ i\6r]VTi(Tiv (iXXo Kai ev 2tKeAia, Zenobius, Ct'Hf. iii. 64 iv TTiPre Kpnmv yovvafji Kfirat* 

. . . jr/iTf Kpira'i Tcuf KapiKovs (Kpivov, cot (prjai 'E7ri\ap^os, which is copied by Suidas. The difficulty 
is that 4 judges (1. 32) at contests of comedies are not attested at any period, and 
what ' 40 ' refers to is very obscure. Apart from the references quoted concerning Comedy, 
the question of the number of judges at dramatic contests and the method of selection is not 
yet very clear; cf. Miiller, Lehrb. d. griech. BUhnetiall. 368-72. In Plut. Cimon 8 the ten 
strategi appear as judges in a contest at which Sophocles won the first prize ; but it is generally 
supposed that there were normally 5 judges for tragedies as well as for comedies, and these 
were in both cases selected by lot from a larger body of 10, i.e. i for each tribe, this body 
of 10 having been chosen by lot from a much larger number, of which the size is unknown. 
But it is not satisfactory to identify the ' 40 ' with the largest body. The number ' 5 ' in 
connexion with contests of comedies might also refer to the contending poets, of whom 5 are 
attested in the time of Aristophanes and in the second century b. c. (cf Miiller, op. cit. 321), 
and these might be connected with tod?]? a\m\ in 1. 29 and be contrasted with r) 8v ovras, 
not with Tea-<Tnpas Kai tovs Kpiras. Owing to the loss of the beginning we are unable 
to suggest a satisfactory explanation of the passage ; but in view of (i) the common use of 
Kpirai in connexion with dramatic contests in particular, and (2) the two references to Old 
Comedy, it remains probable that contests of comedies are in some way meant. Of the 
Bacchae of Lysippus, which seems to have been his most popular play, six fragments are 
known, and of Cratinus' nXoCTot nine. 

38. [ojn : cf. 1. loi. The papyrus is not broken, but no trace of o is visible; it has 
more probably been obliterated than omitted by mistake, ti might be the beginning of 
a section of a work in the style of Aristotle's Problems, but does not suit todto in 1. 42 ; 
cf. the next n. 

42. tovto, we think, refers to the following quotation, like ovTa^ in 11. 56 and 115. 
There is no marginal indication of the beginning of a quotation here, as there is commonly 
elsewhere (cf. p. 129); but rai ourosis unintelligible as part of our author's commentary. Where 
the Theophrasius quotation ends is not quite clear. It might stop after Kaiwiif in 1. 46, or 
oii-oXvo-a[t in 1. 54, or anodutjiirKfi in 1. 83, where the Acusilaus quotadon in any case ends 
and there are strokes in the margin, or even after Kai«a in 1. 85. That 11. 85-100 belong 
to Theophrastus is very unlikely, their subject being irrelevant to his treatise. We adopt 
I. 46 as the dividing-point between the Theophrastus quotation and our author's comment. 
If Theophrastus had quoted the long Acusilaus extract, which is not in itself likely, an 
allusion to the latter wculd rather have been expected at the beginning of the section, and 
below 1. 46 a paragraphus or other critical sign may have been lost. 

46. n|ioi/ is a mistake for n^iav. Cf. p. 130. 

49-52. The ends of these lines are on a fragment which was originally separate, but is 
very suitably placed here, though there is no external indication that it belongs to the top 
of a column, n [AXo]i is inadmissible in 11. 49-50. 7r[pos] ri;? in 1. 51 is not at all satisfactory 
in the apparent sense of Kard with the accusative, but w[fpi] is no improvement, and 
a preposition is required, p. and v are the only alternatives to n-, S[ia being thus excluded 
and p[fTa being also unsatisfactory. 

53. ( can equally well be read in place of the t of (C(lTnX[eyo/Jf^?;9, but xai aX[Xu;' (with tov 
instead of v-rr in 1. 52) makes 1. 53 much shorter than the preceding lines, though not much 
shorter than 1. 54 if an-oXi'(r(j[t there is right. a7r(Ai'o-o[o-^ai is possible as far as the size of the 
lacuna is concerned, but would make 1. 54 unusually long. 


55- Kairfa : or Kat«(i)[r. 

56. j^ in the margin, marking the beginning of the quotation, probably, as Allen 
suggests, means ;(p(^(jis), i.e. 'passage'; cf. Dion. Hal. De rhet. 4 and Apoll. Dysc. De synt. 
i. 119. It also occurs in Aiiccd. Oxon. ii. 452. 19 -j^'Apia-roKpdi'ovs ( = Birds 1180), and in 
the Anecd. Parisinum de iioli's (Bergk, Zeitschr. f. Alter. 1845, 88) along with the obelus, 
which occurs in I. r 16 of the papyrus, also apparently to indicate a quotation, for which the 
usual sign in papyri is the diple, e.g. in 405 (Part iii, Plate i). The obelus is explained 
in ^\\t Anted. Paris, in accordance with its usual sense of indicating an error ; of £ the writer 
says chi el ro : haec sola vix ad volunlatem imiusctiiusque ad aliqiikl nolandum ponitur. 

Knij/jji : KaiWf, not Kaij/vj, is the feminine form of Katftilr elsewhere ; cf. Phleg. Fr. 34 
oi avToi (sc. Hesiod, Dicaearchus, Clearchus, Callimachus and others) io-7opoOo-i Kara t^v 

AaTTtowv ^oipav yevioBai 'EXaro) rco /SdCtXei 6vyaT€fja 6vop.a^ofi^vf]t^ Kaii/i'Sa' ravTJj fie Ylo(T€idaiva 
fiiyivra €-nayyei\aa6ai noLijaetv avrtjv o tiv eOiXij, ttju fie d^iuxjai fjfTaWd^at avTrjV els avdpa, TToirjcai re 
arpaTov. tov fie noaeifiwi")? Kara ro a^imdfv noirjcravTOS fieTovofiao-Srjfai Kaii/ia. Ovid, who describes 

at considerable length Caeneus' death in Aletam. xii. 172 sqq., also has Caenis. .Acusilaus' 
work was largely based on Hesiod, and the story of Caeneus may have been derived from 
the poet, though in the extant remains of Hesiod Caeneus is mentioned only in Scul. 179 
among the list of the chiefs of the Lapithae. Homer also has only one mention of him, 

A 264 Kaii/e'a r' 'E^ufiidK re xni dvTiBeov IlnXvffirjpov, on which Schol. A remarks 6 Katvfiis 
'EXorou /ieV ^v irals, Aa7rido>v fie (iaaiXfi'S, TvpoTfpoif i)v -nnpOtvos ev7Tp(T;r]Sj Jiiye'^TOS 8e auTTJ noCTetSuiros, 
oiT-quapivrj utrajiakf'iv (Is iwl^pa r^ vedms axpUTOS Y'''ET"'"i yti'i'aiOTaTOS jiiiv Ka6' auxoi' UTrdp^as. 
Ka\ fir) TTore iTTj^ai dKoi'Ttoi' eV tc5 pfaaiTtWto ttjs dynpds Stov roiro irpoiTiTa^fv dpiOpuv, fii' t}v nirmf 
dyai'aKTi^aas 6 Zeus Tipcopiav ttjs d(re/3eioc Trap' avroii (lirenpd^aTO. pa^opfvov yap avTov Tols 
KevTaupois kcu uTputTov ovTa vno^fipLov £noLT]<T€' l3a\6vTfs yap avTov ol npoetpqpei^oi Spucrt re Kal 
(Xdrnis rjpticrav eis yrjv. pe'pvrjrai fie airov Kat 'AttoWoivios f'v Tois ' ApyovnvTiKo'is (i. 59)) Xiyav ovtqis' 
Katvea yap fii) irpoaOev ert KKi'iovatv dotfiol Kivravpoidiv oXeV^at, ore o-^eas oioy drr liWwv r/Xaa 
apiarfjoyv' ol fi* (pnaXiv oppr^6(vT€s ovre ptv dyKXlvai npoT^pw (jdivov ovre fiat^ut, «XX* appjjKTOs 
aKajiTtTos ihiauTO vei66i yair)s, d(w6pivus iTTifiapricn KaTaiyStjv (Xdrtjaw. Eustathius' comment on 
the verse is very similar 6 fie pvBos (pvad arpajror avTuv dvai <pi}iTi^ nXaTTcov Kul oTt TTapBe'vos 
€i7Tp€nt]s TTore yeydroi, Kai Hoaftbutvos axnrj ^lyeVroj, alrtjanpiifTj dvijp yfVifrSat Kal arptoro? ^elvai^ wv 
TJ6i\iv €TV)((, Xeyerat fie Kal v7i€p(ppouri(TQi. ukovtiov yap, fPaffiv, eV dyopa pitrr/ m'l^as (Is opdov deup 
TovTO TTp'jaira^iv dpid^dv. o6(v rj 8lkt] TTOtvtjv airoi/ dafl:i(ias (IcTTTpaTTopitfrj TTcnoirjKiV vno rols 
Kefrai'pot?, oi Spvfxl re Kal e'Xdrais els yrjv ijpeKTav (ippijKTOv Kal liKafinTov dvvTa vtto yiji'j 6eit'6fiei'of 
artfiapals KaTnty&r]v e'Xtirait, &t cf>T]irtv 'AttoWoivws. Schol. Apoll. Rhod. i. 59 has pu^oXo-yoCo-i fie 
TQif Kaivea nporepoif yeyoreuai yvvalKa, eWa lioueihiovos avrfi TrXr^aidanvTos pfTajiXrjdrji'ai els avdpa. tovto 
yap ^/rrjae Kal aTpuxrlav. ijpitje fie Kal ATTclXXtort Kat eviKt'iBrj, ovtos exeXeue roL-s napiovras opvvvai els 
TO fidpu avTOv' evBev >] napoipia to Kaiveus fidpu. Tivfs fie' ^airi Katfe'a avpirXexKTai tols ApyovavTais ^ 
ov Kopcovov. 6 fie AnoXXciitfins napa Uii/ddpov elXr](f>e Xeyoi/TOSf 6 fie )(X(tjpJ,s eXdrjiai TUTre/f (^X^'^° 
Katvevs a-)(lcras up6u> noK yiip { = Pind. Fr. 167 Scliroeder). TOVTO Se avTui tTiVfjir] fiin ro pijre 
6ieiv iJir)Te eC\ea-6ai toIs denls, dXXd rm f'nuroO 6\ipari. 816 Zeus e4>op}jia auTw rous Kei-raupous, 
o'lTifes Kara yr\v auToc uBoOaii'. Agatharchides' desciiplion (De mart Eryth. 7) is en Kmre'a roi- 
Aanlfrjf to /xei' utt' dji^jjs yevicOai Trapdevov Kal yvvalKa^ fjl^TjaavTa fie els aifBpa peTafTTijvai, to fi' 
I'trraroi' els Tr)v yrp/ vno Tojf KevTavpiov KaTa^vifai Ta^s eXuTnis TV-TTTopevov, dpddi^ re Kal ^ciiVTa, The 

connexion between some of these passages antl the Acusilaus extract is very close, especially 
in the earlier part of Schol. A on A 264 (followed by Eustathius), and the later part of 
Schol. Apoll. Rhod. i. 59, where Acutilaus is either slightly paraphrased or reproduced. 
Evidently Acusilaus was the chief authority for the Caeneus legend, though e. g. the details 
about the request to be made into a man, which are absent in Acusilaus and are elaborated 
in Schol. Luc. Gall. 19 somewhat differently, are probably derived from another mytho- 


59. Kpov: a diaeresis above i may be lost. Acusilaus' remark seems very naive in 
the light of the number of legends about children of the gods by mortals ; and it is not 
surprising that in 11. 85-ico, the union of gods and mortals is further discussed by our 
author with a parallel from Euripides. 

TCKcV: most of the fourth letter has disappeared in a lacuna; but after k is part of 
a stroke which suits the beginning of (, and the end of a horizontal stroke joining the 
middle of v survives, which e.xcludes rcKeiv, the ordinary Ionic form, found e.g. in Hdt. 
vi. 131, but of course with a circumflex accent, nxifw is an altogether impossible reading, 
though parallels for such a form are not wanting in Hdt.; cf. Smyth, lotiic Diakct, § 602. 
T(Ki(v is just possible as a reading, but much less probable than TfifcV, because (i) the lacuna 
is not large enough for « with cross-bars as long as that in the c after r, (2) the accent, with 
the reading tf, would really be on the second f, not the first, where it ought to have been 
placed, (3) though the Ionic second aorist infinitive in dv is ultimately derived from -Uv 
(cf. Smvih, /. f.), that form of the infinitive is not found in either Hdt. or Ionic inscriptions, 
any more than in the MSS. of Homer, so that Acusilaus, though a writer of considerable 
antiquity, is not at all likely to have used the form t(kUv, nor would the corrector of the 
papyrus' have been likely to ascribe it to him by error. TticeV is a Doric form, parallel to 
(■|fXeV, ayayiv, &c. (cf Kiihner-Blass, Grarnm. i. 2, p. 58), and, the present extract being the 
sole authority for Acusilaus' dialect, does not require to be altered to TiKilv, especially since 
Dorisms tend to occur in Ionic, and the corrector has put the right accent on the form, not 
merely omitted t. 

fKfiiou: i.e. Poseidon, as is clear from e^ a^^ov uvStuot, in spite of the confusion of 
(Tenders in 1. 61. Cf. also Plut. T/ies. 20 reKflv ix ei^o-tMs 'ApiuSvtjv Olvoniopa. 

6 I. avTou : 1. nvTi)if. 

63. [Mf]y'[o-]i[';]'': cf yctraioVaTos Tav Kaff avTov in Scliol. A quoted in 1. 56, n. 

66. K(VToiT) : or Kfuroi v. Herodotus avoids optatives in -ii; and does not contract -eoi 
after a consonant, so that Acusilaus' usage was in any case not parallel to his. (popoii] 
occurs in Homer 1 320, nXovroirj in Tyrtaeus, uvfipapTvpoiq in Solon, Soko/t) in Heraclitus, 
while Hippocrates prefers -017 to -foi. On the other hand Theognis has tptXoi, and  even in 
prose there is ample support for 01 after consonants as well as after vowels' (Smyth, o/>. cit, 
p. 531 ; cf. § 651). 

67-8. na\i(TTa xp'iiJtaTav : the lexicons do not afford any parallels for this expression. 

73-4. For the suggested restoration of these lines cf. the scholiasts quoted in 1. 56, n. 

75. The letter following i;e can be c. o-i fl ou rai f . [ is inadmissible, ei being the only 
alternative to v No word meaning ' worshipped ' seems suitable, and ^foi](7i 8 kt\. is 
apparently to be connected with what follows rather than with the preceding sentence, so 
that a word meaning ' pleasing ' would be appropriate (ijev [^Sv?). 

80. opuov is evidenUy a mistake for opdwv, as remarked by Allen ; cf. opda ttoSI in the 
Pindar fragment and ipdov in Agatharchides, both quoted in 1. 56, n. The Ionic form of 
opftoi/ would be ovpuov, and that word is quite inappropriate here. 

84. TL is for TO. 

85-6. A predicate for Swarai would be expected in place of Sm tovtov, e.g. tovtu 
or uTov, 

8-_()i. Of Euripides' '\'XKp(a>v 6 Sm Kopindov only three fragments are known with 
certainly (Frs. 74, 75, 77 Nauck), but the argument of it is described by Apollodorus iii. 7. 7, 
who calls the children in question (Amphilochus and Tisiphone) TvalSas Svo, not twins as in 
1. 92. Their mother (the napdivos of 1. 93) was Manto, daughter of Tiresias, and the d(6s 
of 1. 89 is evidendy Apollo ; cf. Apollod. iii. 7. 4 mii-Kova-iv \\Tt6\\avi ral t^k Tfipfcn'ou Bi-ymfpn 
MaiTM, and Ep. 6. 3, where in a ditTerent legend Mopsus is called the son of Apollo and 


97. The verb in the apodosis may well have been Si^XoCtoi, as Rostowzew suggests. 
loi-ii. The restoration of 11. 102-3 noXffiwi/ . . . aKpimo^iai is due to Stuart Jones ; 

cf. int. and Marcellinus, I'l/a Time. §§ 16—17 on yap'OXopos ea-rtv 17 arrjXr] S'jXo^ r) eVl ToO Tu<pov 

avToi Kftpevr], (v6a Ke-)^apn<Tac eoi>/<i;SiS;j9 'oXdpou ' Wifiovaios (in § 53 the inscription is quoted 

on the authority of Antyllus). irpos yap toIs MeXtTtVi nvXats KaXovpiran eorh' eV KoiXtj ra KaXovfieva 
Ki/xcofm fLVTjpaTaj evOa dfiKvvrai 'HpoSorou kih QovKvdidov rdtpos. eupiaKeTai (St} ?^ dtjXov on Tov 
MtKTtabov yii'ovs cov' ^€i>os yap ouSf t? cVf I SaTTTerai. Kai UoXipcov fie eV tw Ofpi aKpoTToXeoa tovtols 
fxaprvpfl^ ivBa Km TipoBeov vlbv avTw yiyiVT)G6ai irpoa-iOTopu. and § 28 eyivovTo QovKvhlhai ttoXXo/, 
ovro? re 6 'OXdpou Trats Koi fieurepo? drj^iayoiyoSf MeXT/crtou, 69 Kai neptxXei SieTToXtreftrnTo* Tplros 5e 
■yeVei *ap(rriXiof, oJ pipvrjTai noKefiaiv e'v Tois Ilepi ditpoTrdXemj, (j>d<TKav avrov iivai Trarpos Mevavns. 

There were four books of the riepi dxpoTr. according to Strabo ix. p. 396. The letter 
following Srj in 1. 102 is very uncertain, only a spot of ink at the bottom of the line being 
preserved, which indicates an angular letter (a or X) or else one beginning with a vertical 
stroke (e. g. p, v, or tt) rather than a round letter such as o-. dvaypa<f)[ in 1. 105 {\j^ is the only 
alternative for <^) suggests an inscription about Thucydides son of JMelesias and father of 
Stephanus, parallel to that apparently mentioned by Polemon in the same work with 
reference to the historian; and in fact Athen. vi. 234 d states that Polemon ypuyfrai wept 

napaaiTMV (prjd'iu ovtws' . . . iv Kucocrdpyet pey ovv er tw 'HpaxXeioj (TTi^Xrj TtT (trrtv, iv 7/ yj/Tjcfytapa peV 

'AXxi/SidSov, ypapparevs Se 2Tf<pavos BovKydiSov . . . This Stele may well be identified with or 
connected with the amypafpt) here, especially since the paternity of Stephanus seems to the 
point with which our author is most concerned (cf. 11. 1 1 2 sqq.) : but the Athenaeus quotation 
is generally assigned to Polemon's llep! ivopdrajv dSo^cov eVioroXi; (.\then. ix. 409 d), and 
Polemon was there clearly concerned with the meaning of napda-iTos, not with Thucydides, 
so that in any case our author's reference to Polemon iTepl dxpoTrdXemf was not to the 
passage quoted by Athenaeus. For Ko[aXepoi' in 1. 107 (suggested by Allen) cf. Plut. 

Cimon 4 Ktpwv 8i . . . koI tm ndTrna) Ki'pww TTpoo-eoiKois rrjv (pv(nv, of Si' eifjdddv (pairi KodXepoK 

npoaayopcvBrivai, and Aeschines Socraticus quoted by Athen. v. 220 b 'imvovmov ph tov KnWlov 
KonXepof Trpoirayopeuei. The o is nearly Certain, but it is necessary to suppose the omission of 
KoKov owing to homoioteleuton. Upon the restoration of the end of 1. 108 depends the 
sense of the whole passage. Starling from the fact that Polemon according to Marcellinus 
mentioned both Thucydides the historian and Thuc. the Pharsalian (a proxenus of the 
Athenians in 411 b. c. ; cf. Thuc. viii. 92) in the llept dxpoTr., we think that (paai in 1. no 
includes Polemon (1. 102), and therefore in 11. 101-2 the name of another author is to be 
supplied, to which 6r/ .[ in 1. 102 may belong, [ouroi in 1. 108 referring to both names. For 
Tpi]Tov in 1. no cf RIarcellinus § 28 quoted above. The general sense of 11. loi-ii seems 
to be that Polemon Ilfpi dxporr. and another author referred to not one Thucydides only 
(era or e'wKMf may have followed oix in 1. loi) on the evidence of an inscription (f bC], or e'|], 
dvaypa<p[o>v in 11. 104-5), but to three in all. A mention of Thucydides by name is expected 
before 1. io6, and eovKv8i];Si)i' can well be restored in 11. 101-2 (in which case there is room 
for only a very short name after it before rat, and tov in 1. 106 is probably aii]|Toi/), or 
eouKiiSiSi)!'] I Tof can be read in 11. 105-6 ; but a restoration of the whole passage is scarcely 
possible. The hypothesis that ovx qualifies the whole sentence and the point is that Polemon 
did not mention (5t;X[oi could be read in 1. 102) the son of IMelesias, but only the other two 
persons called Thucydides, is unsatisfactory, for though Marcellinus does not refer to 
Polemon in connexion with the son of Melesias, Polemon of course knew about the 
politician, and avaypa<p[ does not at all suggest that ovx 'S to be connected with a verb 
meaning ' mentioned'. A different sense would be obtained by restoring [aXXoi in 1. 108 as 
the subject of 0ao-t, contrasted with lloXepwi/ in 1. 102, who would then stand by himself. 
To get rid of the supposed author coupled with Polemon is an advantage, but with Tpijroi' in 
1. no the passage would then produce a marked conflict with Marcellinus' statements that 


Polemon referred to the historian and the Pharsalian in the rifpluicpoTr. This difficulty could 
be somewhat lessened by restoring Toujjror instead oi rpi^rov m 1. no, and supposing the 
general sense to be that Polemon identified a certain Thucydides with the son of Melesias, 
while others maintained that he was the Pharsalian. But the reference to the son of Olorus 
then becomes rather pointless, especially in view of the circumstance that Polemon is known 
from !MarceIlinus to have produced evidence for the ancestry of the historian. 

113-19 Cf. J/ivw 94c evdvfxndqTi on QovKvhihr)^ ktX. One IMS. (F) has 6 eovx., w'hich is 
possible here, and before tovtovs in 1. 118 the MSS. insert Kai A similar passage occurs in the 
Pseudo-Platonic U(p\ dpfrris 378 a, wliere it is stated with regard to Melesias and Stephanus 
Tuv y frfpov pixc- y'lpo'^ (3ioOi'tu, tox S' eripov Tioppca naw. Melesias is a character in the 
Laches, but nothing more is known about Stephanus, except the inscription discussed in 
the preceding n. For the obelus against 1. 116 cf. 1. 56, n. 

119-20. Ep^iTi-in-os o 7roi];;Tr;s ; the title is added to distinguish him from the philosopher, 
6 KaXX;/uu;(fiof. The poet was older than Eupolis and Aristophanes according to Suidas. 
The titles of nine of his comedies are known, but not the lapelus. 

121. lui'o[f Op(p]a\rj : the Omphalc was a satyric drama, of which sixteen fragments are 
known. Another quotation from it perhaps occurred in 11. 277 sqq. 

1 23. (u(^) HpaKAeouf should perhaps be read, Heracles being then the speaker of the two 
lines ; cf. 1. 89 Xtyopivov xmo 6fov. As the text stands, the subject of t^fKa\\yo\piv may be 
the satyrs, not Heracles. With \iopuoi [ittIttos (so Allen) cf. Homer Y 221 sqq. tov Tpio-xiXiai 

iiTTroi . . . taav km Bopiris ripdcrcraTO jioaKopemav. Perhaps Bopfios should be written. 

124-5. "P"" • •  nfXoTTor: cf. Fr. 24 (Nauck) of the Oniphale rai ^apSmvov Koapov (ISe'mi 
xpoos Upeivov 7] Toi/ ncXoTToj iv vr)ix(a Tponov. The Scene of the Otnphale was laid in Lydia 
(cf. Frs. 22, 23, 27). Possibly Heracles had been sent by Omphale to fetch one of the 
horses sprung from Boreas which belonged to Pelops ; cf. the legend of the capture of 
the horses of Diomedes, which Heracles gave to Eurysiheus (Apollod. ii. 5. 8). But the 
plot of the Omphale is very obscure. 

127. oitfToi, which would mean 'is winnowed', is obviously an error for dverm: cf. e.g. 

Homer K 251 paXd yap m^ civeTM. 

128. [SinXjeXvKf S : on the analogy of the preceding lines two letters before XjfXu/cf would 
be preferable, but probjbly the column sloped away a little to the left, though o in 1. 129 
can be omitted, [km XJcXuke 8 is also possible, the simple verb as well as biakvtiv being used 
for solving difficulties. Cf. for rai . . . bi 11. 174-5, n. 

128-9. M>'a[<rens o.'l naTap[(vs: cf. int. and Susemihl i. 679. 1611 agrees with the 
scholia on Hesiod, Pindar, and Lucian in giving Patara (in Lycia) as his birthplace, while 
the MSS. of Athenaeus and Photius call him o narpevi, i. e. from Patrae in Achaea, but in 
the light of 1611 are to be emended to 6 Uarapfvi. With regard to the title of his work on 
oracles Schol. Pindar, 01. ii. 70 calls it Htp! xfln<^^^'^"'^ w'hile Schol. Hesiod, Thcog. 117 calls 
it 17 Tav A('X(piKo>v xpio-p'^" amayayt). 1611 Seems to agree with the former, but Ti;[t [ rav 
x]p')o-/ia)[i' (Twayayrii is a possible reading. 

135-43- The coronis after 1. 138 probably indicates a following quotation (cf. 1. 115 
and int. p. 129), to which dapa-ei in 1. 141 may well belong. Allen suggests nff^f[(rtXfia 
.... in I. 139 and 6apTfi li[(v9f(Ti\fia in 1. 141, i.e. a quotation from the Aelhiopis of 
Arctinus, which is perhaps cited in 11. 145-50 ; cf. 11. 148-9, n. But 09 (probably 0$) f;n[ in 
1. 142 does not suit this hypothesis, and the colour of Frs. 3 and 4 is different, so that 
a connexion between them is unlikely. Lines 136-8 might also be hexameters, as Allen 

remarks, e. g. ov -nm^fpa KKTH(Taa(a) o fie da\. . . 

146. fyyovot: this spelling of e/fyoras occurs in Attic inscriptions down to 300 b. c. and 
in Ptolemaic inscriptions and papyri (cf. INIayser, Gramm. d. gruch. Pap. p. 228); but is 
not legitimate in hexameters. 



148-9. Ap |ct4 PJkos : [Ax PjOior can equall}' well be read, or possibly [. JXioj. Achaeus 

wrote tragedies entitled "Afipnoros, 'Afa«f, 'A^Xa, ' h\<^eal^oia, Qrjcrevs, KliKvos, Mo'tpni, Mw/iot, 

olSinovs, lifipiBovs, <l>iXoK7ijTr;s, and *pi^os, one of which may have described the death of the 
woman in question ; but if the author mentioned in 1. 149 also wrote the hexameter verse 
quoted in 1. 146 (which is probable, but not clear), he is not likely to have been Achaeus. With 
Ap'\KTi.]ms (Allen) the quotation would come from the Aethiopis, the woman being Penthesilea 
and the speaker presumably Achilles ; cf. 11. 135-43, n. 6/<ri^fT[(n may, however, end 1. 148. 

150-2. It is not possible to restore 2i/ia)w]3Ts . . . t[w] e \T!a\i.aywv. 

1 54. Not more than one line, if any, is lost before the top of the column, twenty-four 
lines being accounted for, if Fr. 43, which is referred to the middles of 11. 160-2 a, is rightly 
placed, as is practically certain. That Fr. 5 belongs to the upper part of the column of which 
Fr. 6. i is the bottom is indicated by the colour of the verso besides the suitability of the 
resulting restoration. 

158-9. Ka][fti[7rfp i^r^aiv Eparoo-^f |j'7r (Allen) can be restored ; cf. 11. 162-5, 'i- ^"d int. 

1 60. <l'[pti]i'[i;^os : cf. 1. 1 7 1 • f j Tais 4'[pv]j'[i;(ou a-Saif j a(/)r)-yo[u]/if j'fou is Unlikely On account 
of the verb in 1. 165 (Trnpo[7roi(i ?). 

161. Perhaps a0i)yo[i;];uf ){of ovTusi. 

162-5. ^^- •^'- Clouds 967 5 ' HnXXaSn ■ntpai-noKiv Seiviiv' r^ ' Trj\(7T0p6f ti ^oapa', where 
Schol. RV have npx') ^o-paro^ ^pvvl)(ov, ojf ^EpaToaBifT]! (^qalv (^J;. wff *Ep. ^pvv. V), ^pvvi\Qs 
(5f V, om. R) avTov TnvTov Tov aapaTOS pvTjpovevei ws AapnpnKXe'ovs ovtos HaWaBa irfptTenroXtv 
kXijl^u) TToXepn^oKov ayvav ivaiha Ato? peyaKov^ and Schol. Aid, has . . , Xaprr poKKtDVi nvai (paa-LV 
ASrjvaiov, tov Mt'ScofOff vlov. t)(€t df ovTuis' JlaWaba TTCpaenoXttf ktX., aS in Schol. RV, but adding 
dapdaLTTTTOv after pfytiXov. aWuts. ovtws 'EparoaSfPT^s' ^piii'i)(OS avTov tovtov tov aapoTOs pipvrjrai ios 
AapnpoKKcovi ovtos tov Mi^oivus vlov rj paBrjTOV' f;^«t 8i ovtws' UaWdda 7rcp(re77o\Lf bfiviju 6t6v 
€yp(Kvboipov 7T0TLK\f]i^by TToXcpaduKov ayvav 7raT6a ^los ptyoKov SapciO'imrov, Kal Kara AapTrpojcXea 

vTTOTidriai. KGTa Xe|ii'. Schol. Aristid. 217 Dindorf (in reference to the Aristophanes line) has 

€t5o? TovTO aapaTos Ktii upxv' "^^^ ^^ •7Tot7]Tjjv avTov *Vuv(pos Ka'i Aiot^iKjios (time of Hadrian) UTTOpOVCnf 

(If TTjl MoVOLKljl (SC. (OTOpt'nt) 4>pVUl^6l' Ttlftlj flXXoi 6e' <p(iat AapTVpOKXt'tl 7} ^TT}fTL)(OpOl'. TO 6e ' ^(llfijV ' 

dvTt TOO K\i)att} K('iT(it -napti Ton KwptKwL' to yap ddpa ovtojs f\ii * IlaXXat^a TifpceVoXir KXiytro TroXf- 
paboKov ayvav TTiiiha Aias p^ydXov dapiKrimrov i^dapvjjnXnv Or ^apvjjTruiXov ]\ISS.) ai(TTov (cOri'Upt) 

nap6evov. These passages are discussed bj' \^'ilamowitz, Tex/gesch. d. gricch. Lyr. 84-5. 
There were evidently at least two versions of the hymn. 1611 agrees with the version in 
the first note in Schol. Aid., which is really the same as that of Schol. RV and Schol. 
Aristid., the former scholium merely omitting ^apdunxTtov and the latter having xXiyu-m for 
(tXijifo) and adding two words at the end. This, the shorter of the two versions, was that 
of Phrynichus, as is clear from 1611, and was rightly stated by Schol. RV and Schol. 
Aristid., whereas the first note in Schol. Aid. wrongly assigned it to Lamprocles. The 
longer version, i. e. that of Lamprocles, with which Aristophanes' citation, so far as it goes, 
agrees, was given in the second note in Schol. Aid., where the authorship is not clearly 
indicated. None of the scholia makes it clear which Phrynichus is meant. The lyric and 
tragic poet was formerly supposed to be indicated, but now the Phrynichus in question 
whether understood or not by the scholiasts (cf. Wilamowitz, /. c), is generally considered to 
be the comic poet. 1611 also makes no clear sign on this point, but the way in which 
Phrynichus and Aristophanes are coui)led (napaTsoiii. is apparently used with regard to both ; 
cf. the next n.) favours the identification with the comic poet. The brief statements in 
Schol. RV may be derived from our author's fuller discussion, if he was reproducing Erato- 
sthenes or, as is possible but not likely (cf. int.), was Eratosthenes himself. The other 
scholia do not seem to be specially connected with 1611. 

165. 7ra,go[n-oici : cf. 1. 1 75 7rapair]oi€(. The word can mean either 'imitate' or 
' introduce '. 


168. XufiuiXfav. cf. i>. 129. His work riepi Kwiia&ias is cited by Aihen. ix. 374 a. 

171. The omission of the superfluous i is indicated by both a dot above it (cf. e. g. 1624 1 
and a stroke through it. 

172-3. fjiii[6Ti(Tr)) I MiSwTOf .'] : fj.a may be at the end of the line, but fia\[dr)Trji] does not 
fill the lacuna and is unintelligible. The suggested restoration is very doubtful, but brings 
the passage into conne.xion with Schol. Aid. on Ar. Clouds gG-j (quoted in II. 162-5, "•) 
iMiSuraf Di'oi' !j fiudr)Tov, and there is no objection to ^"[^1]. if 'he last two letters were written 
small, as often happens at the end of a line. Schol. Plat. Alcib. i. 387 makes Lamprocles 
the pupil of Agathocles and teacher of Damon. \ia\ can hardly be an adjective of ])lace, 
for Limprocles was an Athenian. 

174-5. For /tai . . . Sf cf. 11. 128, n., 150-1, 228-y. 

183. \afi\: or \a6{. 

195. wiip : cf. 1. 306. But Fr. 7 does not belong to the same column as Frs. 21-2. 

202. yvr)\ is perhaps yvr^umt in some form. yi.yvr)\Tai cannot be read, p or d being the 
only alternatives for t. 

212-14. EJ^Xanlvot 8 (V [rmt E^roiK?] Kricrfiri : the restoration is due to Allen. The 

works variously entitled rif/)! iQviov, "Eflfoii' mo\i.a<3'uu^ KtiVcis, Kn'o-eif (8pwv Km TToXaov (Hellan. 

Fr. 109 from Steph. Byz. ; 1611 seems to have had e^rmror TroXfioi/ alone), and perhaps rifjji Xiov 
KTiaews, are all considered to be identical by Gudenian in Pauly-Wissowa, Realenc. viii. 136-7. 

216. K for k('ii') occurs as early as the end of the first century in the 'A^vraiMj/ lloXiTfia 

218-28. Cf. int. p. I 29. 

222-3. fi(6iKnv a[7TOKOfjii(Ta\fi?]eiioL fie : the vestige of the letter following kqc is too slight 
to be a real clue, but suggests a or X more than a letter beginning w-ith a vertical stroke, 
or round. ti(6{f)iKav = ntdfiKov is much more likely than ii(6 ixav . [ (i. e. some part of iKavos), 
for there is hardly room for a substantive in 1. 222 as well as the beginning of a participle. 
In Dittenberger, Or. Gr. laser. 55. 6, a(p('iKfi> is apparently a mere variation of spelling for 
d(f)^Kev, which occurs in 1. 13, not a perfect, as regarded by Mayser, op. cil. p. 331. 

223. The correction is by the first hand ; cf. p. 130. The reading of the letter after rav 
is very doubtful, but a or X suits better than any other letter. 

224. n[np(jr : cf. 1. 226. But r;, «, /j, i- or 7 . [ or i . [ can be read in place of 77. 
228-9. Cf. 11. 174-5, n. 

231. If the paragraphus is rightly placed (cf. however 11. 90-1, where it is not), api(n-a[ 
is not to be connected with 11. 232 sqq., so that AptcrTu[p;(os is not very likely. AptcrTo'tpavr]! 
cannot be read. 

245. (i!xnToi[: the second letter might be y or 1, the third « or X, the last i-. 

247. o 8e Aa-at][: no personal name beginning thus is known, but there might be 
a reference to the |)laces "hnn-qpa or 'Ao-urjo-dt or adjectives derived from them. Neither 
AatTis [ nor h<T(Tio\s is admissible ; A(ririi'[(ipot (a river in Sicily so spelled in Thuc. vii. 84) 
is possible, but seems too long, even with f]i o-r/iaTfuoi in 1. 248, while A(r(7ii'[ripo]i/ [./jrpo- 
Tfi;oi, which is possible as a reading, gives no consliuction. The division us <ji][ (or <jh[) 
does not suggest any suitable word. 

268. Perhaps 2i/i]a)i'iSov. 

270. ]f Da6(j[ : the third letter could be read as X. The division ■na'i^fv ah<i[ is more 
probable than ji/ vaho[. 

278. Possibly 0^<^a]\r;i' : cf. 1. 121, n. 

280. [Of o6eit]7-[r)]t : the tip of a vertical stroke below the line suits t, and is inconsistent 
with the terminations of KapictVof , EipmiSi)?, or Ti^jjo-ifieot, who are the only other tragic poets 
known to have written an OresUs. Of Theodectes' play with that title only one line 
is extant. 

L a 


281. e above the line is cursively written : of. p. 130. 

283. ]tS[.]n"£ 4-  "^ 's possible in place of (8, and n or X instead of & after ]f/os. 
A]t8[ii]Mor 8[f can be restored, but this line may belong to the quotation from the Orestes ; 
of. int. p. 129. 

301. Aucri7T[7ro$ : cf. 1. 34. 

303. ]''Tp[: Frs. 21 and 22 join here, the tail of the p being on Fr. 22. 

306. TTvp : cf. 1. 195, n. 

327-31. Cf. 11. 23-7, n. 

339. After TTi is an erasure with perhaps one or tw'o letters above it. 

341. >iip[ is more likely to be connected with \elpmv than with Xipdf. It does not seem 
possible to read mp[. 

359. ]ua(j)v[ : possibly 'Ep]fia<pp[oSLT. 

369-70. Allen suggests liaa-Ajfios ^[iXoTraTopntl (or i[i\a&eX(f)Ov) TlrnXeijlmov: but if SO 
the order of the words is unusual. 

392-5. Fr. 43 has been assigned to 11. 160-2 a. 

442. There is no other instance in 1611 of a stop in the middle position, and it is 
very doubtful whether Fr. 64 belongs to this papyrus. 

1612. Oration on the Cult of Caesar. 

28-2 X 12 cm. Third century. 

This papj-nis, whicli was found with 1606-8, &c., and concludes the 
publication of the first of the three large finds of literary papyri in 1905-6 
(cf. 1606. int.), belongs to a speech of a novel character, the subject of it being 
the cult of a Roman Emperor, who is called simply 'Caesar'. One column 
of forty lines is fairly well preserved, and there are beginnings of lines of a second 
column, besides a small detached scrap, which does not seein to belong to Col. i. 
The handwriting is a not very elegant specimen of the sloping oval third-century 
type. The beginnings of the lines, which contain 15-20 letters, slope away 
to the left in a marked degree, and the ends are decidedly uneven. Paragraphi 
and frequent high stops occur, t adscript is written in 1. 27, but in 1. 11 its 
insertion is doubtful. A correction in 1. 12 is in a different hand, which used 
lighter ink, but seems to be not appreciably later than the first. In 11. 22-5 
apparent corruptions have not been altered. 

The main purport of the oration, so far as it can be ascertained, was the 
opposition of the speaker to the cult of Caesar as practised in his own cit\" 
(1. 26 fvddbe), or rather to certain extensions of it or novelties (cf. 1. 1, n.) 
proposed by his adversaries. To Caesar-worship in general he does not seem 
to have been opposed, for in 11. 22 sqq. he expressly deprecates acrefina towards 
Caesar, and disclaims any wish to deprive him of the ' glory of immortality'. In 
addressing his audience he habitually used the second person plural (11. 30 sqq.), 


while his opponents are also spoken of in the plural (1. 11 (^ao-i) ; but in 1. 10 
[j3]oiJaoito a single adversary seems to be indicated, and in 1. i the second person 
singular is apparently used, with reference to an opponent more probably than 
to himself in an objection placed in the mouth of an adversary. The first six 
lines are too incomplete to be restored : a new sentence began in 1. 7, as is shown 
by the paragraphus. The speaker refers to the rites performed in honour of 
Caesar, and strongly asserts his satisfaction that these were not invented bj- his 
fellow countrymen (jj/xets), but at Nicaea by an individual whom he declines 
to describe (11. 9-17). His argument is that this cult ought to be left to the 
Nicaeans. and that the observance of it at his own citj' would be as impious to 
Caesar as the celebration of the Eleusinian mysteries at any other city than 
Athens would be to Demeter (11. 17-29; this interpretation rests on two rather 
violent alterations in the text, which are, we think, absolutely necessitated 
by the context ; cf 1. 22, n.). Evidently conscious that he was treading on 
dangerous ground, the orator then declares his intention of proving that his 
own views were not really derogatory to the immortality of Caesar (11. 30-5) ; 
but the text becomes fragmentary at this point, a contrast being apparently 
drawn in II. 35-40 between the previous and the existing cults at the city 
in question. From Col. ii nothing of importance can be gleaned. 

The boldness of the speaker in dealing with so delicate a topic as Caesar- 
worship is striking, and one would gladly have learnt more of his views on this 
interesting subject. As the fragment stands, it is difficult, perhaps impossible, 
to reconstruct the background of the situation with any approach to certainty. 
The first questions to arise are (i) what place was meant by kvOaht in 1. 26, and 
(2) which, if any particular emperor was meant by 'Caesar'? The reference 
to Nicaea as the starting-place of the cult to which the speaker objected suggests 
a connexion with the well-known description of the origin of Caesar-worship in 
Dio Cassius li. 20 Kaicra/) he iv tovtw (sc. 29 B.C.) rd n aWa (-x^pijixaTL^f Kal re/.iej'j; 
Tj; re P&J/i?; <al tco naTpi ri Kaitrapi rjpioa avrov IovKlov ovoixaaa^ ev re K(f>i(r(t) Kai fv 
ISiKaCq yiviadai i(piJKfr. avrai yap Ton at TroAeis er re tjJ 'Aata kcu ev r?/ ^iBwiq 

■!TpoeTfTLlJ.1]VTO. KOI TOVTOVS /XeV TOIS 'PcO/xaiOtJ Tols 77ap' ailTOlS (TTOlKOVa-L TL/XaV TTpoaiTa^i' 

ToZs 6e 6j( ^evoLS {"EWjiva? acfias eirtKaAecras) kavrOi nva, Toty fiiv \\a-iavols (i> rifpyajuu), 
Toi<i be Bidvvol'! ev NiKOju.7/8eia Teiu-evlcrai eTreTpexj/e. koi roCr' eneWev ap^a.p.evov xat en' 
dWwr avTOKparopwi! ov pLOvov ev rots 'EAAij^tKois" edveiriv, aWd xat ev rois aAAots oira 
rwi> 'V(upialiov ciKoveL eyevero. Dio's statement that the temples at Pergamum and 
Nicomedia were dedicated to Augustus alone requires modification, since it 
conflicts with the statements of Tacitus, ^««. iv. 37, that the temple at Pergamum 
was dedicated to Augustus and Rome, and of Suetonius, Aȣ: 52, that Rome was 
regularly associated with Augustus in the provincial cults ; cf. Kornemann, 


Klio. i. yiS. The correspondence between the papyrus and Dio would be made 
most exact by supposing the speaker in 1612 to be a Roman (which is in any 
case probable), and ' Caesar' to be Julius throughout. trOaoe, with which Nicaea 
is so vehemently contrasted, might well be Nicomedia ; for the two cities were 
long engaged in feud on the question of the headship of Bithynia, and the 
dispute was sufficiently important to be the subject of an oration by Dio Chrysostom 
(no. 38), recommending his compatriots of Nicomedia to come to terms with 
Nicaea. The hypothesis that the speaker in 1612 was a Niconiedian would 
also accord very well with the reference in 11. 24-8 to Demeter ; for that goddess 
appears on the coins of Nicomedia (Wroth, Caial. of Greek coins of Puiitiis, &c., 
pp. 181, 183, 186), and Arrian, the most famous citizen of Nicomedia (cf. Steph. 
Byz. s. v.), was perpetual priest of Demeter and Core there (Schwartz in Pauly- 
Wissowa, Reolenc. ii. 123c). With this interpretation of 1612, which is based 
upon the identification of 'Caesar' with Julius and the existence of a close 
connexion with Dio, the oration was presumably delivered during the reign of 
Augustus, when Caesar-worship of any kind was still a novelty. But there 
are several other possible modes of interpretation. The references to 'Caesar' 
in 1612 do not necessarily indicate that he was dead at the time when the 
oration was delivered (though cf. 1. 31, n.), and if he was alive, ' Caesar' must be 
Augustus or one o^ his successors, not Julius. The date of the papyrus practically 
excludes the possibility of a later emperor than Severus Alexander being meant 
(Diocletian, who made his residence at Nicomedia, is quite out of the question) ; 
but, especially in view of the rather compromising character of the contents of 
1612, it would be more satisfactory to diminish the interval between the supposed 
date of composition and that of the papyrus, which if 'Caesar' is Julius or 
Augustus seems to be about 200 years. Caracalla and Heliogabalus both 
wintered at Nicomedia, and festivals in honour of Commodus and the brothers 
Caracalla and Geta are mentioned in the coins of Nicaea (Wroth, op. cit. pp. 162, 
166). It is also just possible that in 11. 35-6 there is a reference to ' Caesars' in 
the plural, and that these are the reigning emperors. Not only is the hypothesis 
that the scene of the speech was Bithynia quite compatible with the identification 
of ' Caesar ' with a much later emperor than Augustus, but the provenance of the 
papyrus rather suggests Egypt as the scene, though 1612 is hardly parallel to 
e.g. 471, a speech before an emperor directed probably against a pracfect 
of Egypt, which is also arranged in literary form, with punctuation, &c. Against, 
however, the advantages to be gained by making ' Caesar' throughout a second 
or even third century emperor has to be set the consequent impossibility of 
connecting the reference to Nicaea with the passage quoted from Dio Cassius. 
If 'the Nicaean' was the author of the proposal mentioned by Dio, as the 


coincidence with regard to the place-name suggests, KaJiVjapt in 1. 1 1 ought 
to be Juh'iis, and there is no indication that in 11. 9, 24, and 32 a different 
Cae.sar is meant. Moreover the use of the present tense iariv in 1. 15 in 
place of ?/!■, though explicable as a mere piece of rhetoric, rather indicates 
that the Nicaean in question was still alive, and if so he cannot have been 
a second or third century individual, unless the circumstances alluded to in 
11. 14-16 were quite different from those described by Dio. 

A third line of interpretation was proposed by Sir W. M. Ramsay, who, taking 
Caesar as ' the Emperor' in the widest sense, i.e. including the dead as well as 
the living, suggests that 1612 deals with the degradation of true Caesar-worship, 
as expressing Roman patriotism, by superstitious admixture, as e.g. the Nicaean 
cult of the fSpoTOTiovs tiTTTus illustrated by the coins of that city (cf. Drexler in 
Roscher's Lex. d. griech. u. rovi. RIythol. ii. 2693-6), and regards the papyrus as 
a speech made in opposition to some such proposed degradation in the second or 
early third century. The horse with human feet figured in Nicaean coins of 
Antoninus Pius and Gordian is generally supposed to be connected with the 
horse possessing luiiiianis similes pedes in the equestrian statue of Julius Caesar 
before the temple of Venus Genetrix at Rome (Pliny, Nat. Hist. viii. 155 ; cf- 
Suetonius, y«////.f 61) ; but whether the rider represented on the coins, who seems 
to be the god Men, was also identified with Julius Caesar, is more doubtful, and 
there are no indications in 1612 that the superstitious element to which the speaker 
objected was concerned with a horse. 

On the whole we are disposed to regard ' Caesar ' throughout 1612 as Julius, 
not Augustus or a later emperor, whether dead or reigning ; but the mention of 
'the Nicaean ' seems more likely to refer to some unknown innovation connected 
with the worship of Julius, than to either the establishment of that worship at 
Nicaea as recorded by Dio or the cult of the /iporoirows ihttoj. In view of the 
date of the papyrus the speech was probably composed and delivered (or supposed 
to be delivered) not earlier than the second century, and it is safer to make the 
scene of it Egypt (i.e. Alexandria) than Bithynia. The author may well have 
been a sophist of the age of Aristides or a little later, objecting to the introduc- 
tion of some new kind of Oriental cult into the worship of Julius ; but such 
a speech might also occur in a historical work in the style of Dio Cassius. 

Fr. I. Col. i. Col. ii. 

(TV Se vea jy [ 

TavTa VTr[ )tt[ 

Kai Toyroi[ ; . y£[ 



Kai fi(Tan[. . 

5 ai' ix^i'] ?4 

K evaf§[fi . . . . 

.... ov 

. ovSe ? 

Ta TO T . [. . .] irOlrjTiOV 

ravTa [KaiWapa Kat aef^vv 
10 I'etu av [^]ovXoLTO- Xeyco 
Se a Tco Ka[tcr]api ^pacri re 


Xeiv [ToT] yap ([^] ap\ri^ ov^ fv 
pofiev r]pei? avTa /caAcoy 
TTOiovi'Tii' aX\a NiKa 
1 5 eiT eariv o Trpooro? Ka 
TacTTTiaas' onoio? fitv av 
Opcono^ ov S(i Xeyity € 
arco S ovi' iKiivov Kai 
Trap e/ceii/[oi]y TeXeicr^o) 
20 p.ovoi'S- (ojnep irapa tou 
AOrji'aiois ra tcov EXiv 
anvLCov ei ^ovXofii[6]a 
avTov acre/3611' to[v\ 
Kaicrapa- wcnrep ay Kai Trj[i> 
25 [A]>]/ir}Tpai' a€^[o]up.ei' 
a]p fvOaSf TiXovvTd 
a]yTr]i rrjr eKu[a]e TeXf 
Ttjy- OV yap i6eXei ai'H 
va ?]i Toiv ToiovTcov ovSev 
30 [oTi] S ovK acf>aip7]a€(r0[e 
T7?i'] So^av 77;y aOai'[a 
<7iay] Tov Kaiaapo? falu e 
jioi ? TT^ncrQrjTe napaS([i 
yjxa v^fiii' fpco TO vvv t[. 

35 [ ] 7-a yap tu>v k[. . .]s 

.]l' (.Te.X\ovp{\v 

K^aL T[ovTa> ?]i/ ovOiv 

oy . [ 

45 ia[ 

50 aaoi[ 

f^f • [ 
a-6ai . [ 

Kaio . [ 

[.]ov . [ 
55 Of ex[ 
p aVT[ 

yap t[ 



oipa[i r 

70 TOV S[ 

upevs [ 
7 5 Trpoaa[ 
^(i cocr[ 

Fr, 2. 

I I ?lep€a[ 



[ ]kk .[...] apy^aia € . a-[. .]€t[ 

[ ]TiY [to]vs Ofovs fiev .'\Ta[ 

40 [ }va . ai' 80 . or . //[ 

8—37* • • • noirjTeoVj TavTti \Kai\T(ip(i Km aefxvvveiv av UiVivKoiTo, Xe'yo) 6f a tu> Kn\ia\api (^ikti 
TcXfii/. Kai'iJ yi\p e'[^] apxqs oix (vpojxev >]fuh niVti, (tnXoif iroiovvTfs, aWa NiKafvs icrriv 6 npwTtn 
KaTa(TTi](Tas. onolos /ieV afdp(t>7Tns, ov dd )i€y€iit' itJTU> 5' ovv eVfiVou koX nap eKfiV[oJt? TeXfttr^o) povoi'i^ 
MffTTcp ■nnpii ro(? Adqfalois rii twv ^EXiva-iifioiv, d (m')) /3ovXn^f[^Ja avrov uae^f'iv to[i'| KoiVopa, wairfp 
itv Ka\ Ttj'v ^i^tjpj'jTpnv ^a)a-f/:J[o]^i^^ei' {['^J''} evBdbe reXovt'Tfs \a]uTfi ttjv fKf([o-lf T^XfTrTjly' ov yap 
eWXfi dvf'i[va ?]i tuo Toioi^rwr oMfV. [on] 8' o^k fii^aipijcrf o-6[f t^v] Sii^ni' t^s (ifiai'Uo-iat] ToC 

Kaiaapos f'(i\v epoi ? 7r]ft<r^r;rf , TrapaSfl ty^a i; (a?y f'po) to i/ui/ t[ 1 ra ya/j twv k\, , Jf[ lu 

crfXroi'/icJi' [ Kjal tToijto) ?jy oiibiv . . . 

' . . . he would wish these (?) really to magnify Caesar, I am referring to the rites which 
they say that they perform to Caesar. It was not we who originally invented those rites, 
which is to our credit, but it was a Nicaean wlio was the first to institute them. The 
character of the man need not be described : in any case let the rites be his, and let them 
be performed among his people alone, as the Eleusinian riles are among the Athenians, 
unless we wish to commit sacrilege against Caesar himself, as we should commit sacrilege 
against Demeier also, if we performed to her here the ritual used there ; for she is un- 
willing to aliow any rites of that sort (?). As a proof that you will not be depriving Caesar 
of the glory of immortality, if you listen to me, 1 will tell }ou . . .' 

I. av 6f vea t[: the use of the second person singular creates a slight, but by no 
means insuperable difficulty; cf. int. av might of course be e.g. r]pi]\iTv, and 6 fv eX7r[i . . . 
could be read; but wa suits the context (cf. 1. 38 ap;(aia), referring to the rites in 

3. TovToi[ : the last letter can also be y, p, v, or 77. 

4. ^fr(ijr[ : or /xfray[. 

7-8. Jk p[e\Ta : the vestige of a letter following v is too slight to afford a real clue, and 
after it nothing may be lost. 

8. TO T .[. . .]: T and v sometimes closely resemble each other in this hand, and tov7[. . .] 
is just possible, but to t followed by rj, i, or v is preferable. There may have been a high 
stop after Troir/Ttoi', the surface of the papyrus being damaged at that point. In any case 
Tavra seems to be the subject o( afpvvven', not the object oi notriTeop, though the construction 
of 11. 7-10 is not clear. The sentence may have begun with d. 

10. av [/3]tn;XoiTo : the vestige of the supposed i' is very slight, and there would be room 
for another letter in the lacuna, for i'[^] occupies the same space as Kaio- in II. 9 and 11. 
8 is possible in place of a, but av seems necessary for the optative. 

II. Tco Ka[icr]npi: or Twi K[ai(T]iipi. Cf. [a]uTT;i in 1. 27. 

1 4. NiTOfuj : cf. int. 

16. avSpanns may receive either a rough or a smooth breathing. 

22. fi ^ov\up([6]a : the insertion of a negative is required both here and in 1. 25 to give 
sense to the argument. tTfi3[oli.;ifi/ there is evidently a mistake for ao-efioipsv, and here either 
ft is to be altered to ok, or prj is to be inserted. 

26. a[v]: V is almost certain, o> or at, which are the only otlier possibilities, being much 
less suitable. The repetition of nv is not necessarily wrong, but probably there was 
a mistake of some kind, possibly the incorrect division <TflB[o]vp(v'[riy (sc. <KTe/3oi;xfi/). 

28-9. The subject of tdiXd is not clear, but is more likely to be Caesar or Demeter 


than the Nicaean. The next word is presumably an infinitive ending in [. a]i or [<rfti]i or 
perhaps [n]i/ or \_ei\v. The last letter is more like i than v, and no alternative is possible. 
V before ei is almost ceitain, 7 being the only alternative. The first letter must be a, y, 8, X, 
H, V, TT, or T : a spot of ink between this and v probably, if the first letter is a, belongs to 
that, not to a distinct letter, and is in any case inconsistent with a broad letter or one 
coming below the line. avu\ya\i, ' to allow ', is difircult, but suits the vestiges better than 
(i[p v(i\tx6it\i.. In Toiv certainly, and possibly in roiuvTav also, the m is closed at the top, as 
if the scribe intended to alter it to o ; but he certainly did not write tov toioutoi' originally, 
and is more likely to have intended rav Towvruv. ov8ev suits the vestiges better than ovBev 
(cf. 1. 37). The supposed stop after it is uncertain ; the surface of the papyrus is damaged 
and ov&eva is a possible reading. 

31. n6ai[ncrias] : cf Dio lii. 36 wot' (irrep dBdvaros afrwf fTTiBvpfis yivtvBai in the speech 

of IMaecenas to Augustus. Lines 30-2 seem more appropriate to a dead than to a living 
Caesar, who did not become technically deut till his death ; cf. int. p. 150. 

34. The letter following mv, if not r, is probably y or n. 

35-6. It is rather tempting to read rmv K[ni(r]«j[pa)i' (cf p. 150) ; but the letter at the end 
of 1. 35 is much more like e than n. ]u might be the end of rrpo roji^. 

1613. List of Early Athenian Archons. 

4-6 X 4-4 cm. Second century. 

This small fragment from the middle of a column belongs to a list of the 
earliest Athenian archons with the numbers of their years of office, like the lists 
in Eusebius (Schone, Euseb. Chroii. i. i(H8 and App. i a. 11), Jerome {op. cit. 
App. I b. 31), the E.xcerpta Latina Barbari [op. cit. App. 6. 217), and Syncellus 
(ed. Dindorf i. 368, 399) ; cf. v. Schoeffer in Pauly-Wissowa, Rcalcnc. ii. 582-3. 
Such lists were no doubt coinmon in Egypt ; cf. the chronological list of 
Olympic victors in 222, and A. Bauer's Alexandrinische Weltchronik {Denkscltr. d. 
Wicii. Akad. li). The handwriting is a small uncial of the Roman period, 
probably of the second century. After the abolition of the Athenian monarchy 
archons according to tradition were appointed at first for life, afterwards for 
ten years, and from 683 U. C. onwards annually. The change from archons for 
life to decennial archons began according to the Exc. Lat. Barb, with Alcmaeon, 
but the other authorities make him the last of the first category. The papyrus 
contains the name of Alcinaeon (1. 5) with the names of his four predecessors 
and six successors in the best supported order (cf. 11. 3-4, n.) ; but the numbers 
of the years of office are missing throughout, and there is nothing to show which 
view was taken with reference to the chronology of Alcmaeon. One name 
is quite corrupt (1. 6. n.) and another is misspelled (1. 8, n.). Only one more 
name after 1. 11 is rct^uired to complete the list of decennial archons: before 
1. I eight names of archons for life are probably lost ; cf. 11. 3-4, n. 











5 AXK/iiCOU [ 


Xaios [ 








10 Ai(OKpa[Tr]^ 




1-3. That the originally separate fragment containing err; (three times) is correctly 
assigned to these lines is not quite certain. 

3-4. Between Agamestor and Aeschylus the Exc. Lat. Barb, insert Thersippus, who 
is placed by the other authorities (cf. int.) 4th in the list of archons for life, Ariphron 
(1. i) being 9th, as he presumably was here. 

5. AXkikiov : cf. int. 

6. Xmos : 1. Xapo\j/. From this point onwards the figure lost was presumably i in each 
case ; cf. int. 

8. KXfoSiK[or : so also Syncellus ; but Eusebius has (K)Xfi'StKos or Klidikus, Jerome 
Elidicus, and Exc. Lat. Barb. Celdicus. KXfiSixos is the correct form; cf. Pans. i. 3. 3. 



1614. Pindar. 01. i, ii, vi, vii. 
28'8 X 27-2 cm. 

Fifth or sixth century. 

The lost poems of Pindar occur in several papyri, chiefly from O.Kjrhynchus, 
Dithyrambs in 1604, Paeans in 841 and P. S. I. 147, Partheneia in 659, odes of 
uncertain character in 408 and possibly 426 ; but the extant epinician odes have 
not hitherto been represented in Egyptian finds, so that a special interest attaches 
to this fragment of a codex of the Olympian odes. It consists of a single sheet 
forming two leaves, the first of which contains i. io6-ii. 45 (when complete i. 104- 


ii. 50), the second vi. 71-vii. 20 (when complete vi. 68-vii. 26). The lines are for 
the most part short, being divided much as in the extant MSS., and of the four 
columns two (i and iii) are fairly well preserved, but the other two have only the 
ends of lines. The upper margin is not preserved anywhere, but in Col. iii 1. 150 
(= 01. vi. 95) is the last. 20 more lines corresponding to vi. 96-105 are 
required to complete the ode, but these must have been omitted in Col. iv, 
for 1. 158 (vii. 6) is at the back of 1. iii (vi. 72), and that the number of lines lost 
at the top of Col. iv did not exceed 7 is clear from the size of the corresponding 
interval between the last extant line of Col. i (1- 51 = ii- 17) and the first of Col. ii 
(1. S7— ''• 31). How the 5 missing lines were distributed between Cols, i and ii 
is not quite certain, for, as far as Col. i by itself is concerned, there is room for 
I or 2 more lines at the bottom. But if, as seems not improbable. Ode vii 
began at the top of Col. iv, the top of Col. ii can be made fairly even with the top 
of Col. iv only on the hypothesis that 1. 51 was the last of Col. i. Otherwise, if 
e. g. there are onlj^ 3 lines instead of ,5 lost at the top of Col. ii, there will certainly 
not be room at the top of Col. iv for the first few lines of Ode vii, especially since 
the writing in Cols, iii-iv is by a different scribe from that of Cols, i-ii and less 
compact. Neither scribe emploj'ed a formal uncial, the hand of the first being rude 
and irregular, while that of the second tends to become cursive, particularly in 
et at the ends of lines. Black ink was used by the first scribe as far as 1. 67, 
brown ink by him in 11. 68-95 and by the second scribe, whose pen was 
thinner. Iota adscript was rarely written. Both scribes inserted marks of elision 
and diaeresis and occasional stops (high points), the second also occasional 
breathings and an apostrophe after yap in 1. 144; but a breathing in 1. 37 in 
brown ink was not written, originally at any rate, by the first hand. That is the 
only trace of a subsequent revision apart from corrections clearly due to the two 
scribes themselves. The date of the papyrus is certainly fifth or sixth century, 
more probably the former, but the Byzantine documents found with it have not 
yet been unrolled. 

The MSS. of Pindar's epinician odes are divided into two families, called the 
Ambrosian and the Vatican. Of the first group the chief representatives are 
A (13th cent.), C (late 14th cent.), N (i3th-i4th cent.), V (late 13th cent.) ; of the 
second B (12th cent.), D and E (14th cent.). In (V. i this classification has to be 
modified, since A there combines v,-ith the Vatican group, U with the Ambrosian. 
The archetype of both families is assigned to the second century, to which 
the extant scholia are also referred. The text is generally thought to have been 
preserved with considerable care owing to the efforts of grammarians, and to liave 
undergone comparatively little corruption since the second century, before which, 
as is shown by quotations, it was far from being fixed. This view is borne out 

1614. PINDAR, OL. I. II. VI, I'll 


by the papjTus, which carries back the evidence some seven centuries and is 
very close to the text of the best MSS., agreeing sometimes with the Ambrosian 
family (11. 79, 112, 1 16-17, i3i, 146, 169), somewhat oftener with the Vatican 
(11. S, 24, 30, 36, 59, 82, 85, 9a, 95, 126, 175). The difficulty in ii. 6 (11. 32-3, n.) 
and the interpolation in ii. 29-30 (11. 70-1, n.) recur. A number of slips are 
found, as is usual in Byzantine texts ; cf. e.g. 1618. Of the new readings the most 
interesting occur in ii. 39 and vi. 77 ; cf. 11. 88 and 119, nn. 

Col. i (Fol. 

3 lines lost 
Oioi tniTponos i. 106 

5 eaji/ 7 faiai firjSfTai 

f^CDi' [to]v[to KrjSo? lepcui' 
fiepifii[ai]ati'[-] a S[€ fi-q Ta)^v Xlitoi 
en yXvKVTipav K[iv iXnofxai 
^vv apfiaTL doco K\[ei no 

10 ^etl' iTTlKOVpOV i[vpCOV 


oSoi' AjeJIyo)!' Tra[p (vSenXof eXOwi' 
Kpoviov epoi fiei' [ooy Moiaa Kaprepoo 

-arof (3fXo? uXkui rp'ecpiL ? aXXoi 

ai S aXXoi piyaXof to S eavaToyf ko 
15 pvcpovTai ^aaiXevar fn^Keri 

TraTTTaive nopaiov 

itr] ae ye tovtoi' 115 

vy^ov \poi'oy Trareiv e/xe 

Te ToaaaSe i'iKa(popoii 
20 OfiiXeii' wpocpai'TOf aocp'ja KaO EX 

Xai'ai eoi'Ta navTa 

&7]pcovi AaKpa\yai'jLva) apfiari ? 
ai'a^[L](popniyye[9 v/ivoi ii. i 

T[iva 6]eoi' tip' r][pooa 
25 Til a S'] avSpa KeXa[Srjaoiiei' 
t]Toi rita-a fiev Ai\os 

I verso). 

OXvfiTTLaSa S' e(7[Ta 

aiu HpaKXerjs 

UKpoBwa TToXejiov [ 
30 Qr)pa>va 8e TeTpao[piai 

eveKa I'tKa^opov 

yeycoiy}Teov ottl 

StKULOi' ^euof 

epeicrp AKpayavT[o'i 
3."i evaivvpcov Se 7raTi[p(oi' 

aa>Toy opBoiroXii' 

Kapovres 01 noXXa \6vpw 

upov etrxoi' oiKrjua [ 

vorapov 2iKeXtai [t eaav 
40 o(p6aXp[o\i- aiaiyi' S ecpe 

ire po[pai]p[os ttXovtov 

re Kai \a[piv aywv 

yn]aia[i9 eir aperai? 

aXX' CO K[poi'ie irai Pea^ 
4,-, eSoi OX[vpTrov vepcuv 

ae6Xa>[v Te Kopvcpav 

■7Top[o]y [t AX<peov 

ia\i']Oe[is aoiSais 

e[v<pp]a.[v apovpav ert na 
50 Tpjav crcpicrtv Kopiaov 

X[onrco yevei t<ov Se Treirpaypevm 





[ev SiKa re kul napa SiKUf] 

[aTTOLrjTOi' ovS av\ 

[Xporoy travTUiv TraTr]p] 
55 [SwaiTO defief ipycav Ti\o{\ 

\\aBa S( TTOTfio) avr evSaifiovi yei'oiT au] ii. 20 

[iffXcov yap vno )(^apfiaTa>]i' [ 

[Trrj/ia Oi'aaKei TToWiyKOTOv SajiaaBiv 

[oral' 6iov M.oipa\ TrefMirrj 
60 [aveKas oX^ov v\lf]r]\oi' 

[erreTai Se Xoyoy €v]dpoi'Oii 

[KaS/xoio Kovpai\s[-] tnaOoi' 

\ai fiiyaXa] nevGoi Se 

[TnT]i'ei I3apv 
65 [Kpe]<Taoi'a)i' TT/Joy ayaOcof 

[C<o]et fiev OXvfiutoi'; 

[ano6]ai'Oia-a j3pofieo 

[Kepavjfov Taifve 

[dftpa S€fi(X]a (piXei 
70 [56 I'll' JTaXlXay aiai cpiXe 

[oi'Ti Si M]ota-at 

[kui Zivs na]TTjp fiaXa cf)iXeL 

[Se nais Kta<To]<popos 

[XeyovTi S e]i' K[a]t BaXaacra 

Col. ii (Fol. I recto). 

75 [utTa Kopaicrt N^rjpeo^ 

[aXiati ^lOTOv] a(f>6iToy 

[Ivoi TiTa)(Oai] TOV 

[Xov afi(pi •^po'fov rjTOL 

[/SpoToof ye Ki\KpiTai 
80 [Trepar ov tl 6ai']aTov 

[ovS aav^inof] afiepay 

[oTTore waiS'] aXtov 

[anipn avy a]ya6a> 

25 85 [poaL S aXXoTJ aXXai 

[ivOvfitaf] re fiera Kai 

[TTorcoi' ey aySpas e/Sav 

[ovToo Se Moip]' a re naTpanay 

[t<oi>S e^et TOf ? t\v^pova noTfiot' 
90 [OfopToo a-]yi' oX^Q) 

[iTTL Tt Kai 7r])7//[' a]y(i 

[iraXii'TpaTreXoi' aX]\a) vp[ocl(» 

[e^ ovTTip (KTfLfe Aaov popipofi vtoi 

[crvvavTopn'os er Si Uv ] 
30 95 [6a)VL -^prjaOit' TraXaKpaTOf] TiXicra-iu 
9 lines lost 



5 lines lost 
2nd hand e^ o[v TroXvKXetToi' Ka6 EXXava^ vi. 72 
III yei'oy I\apiSav 

oXI3o9 afi i(Tni[T]o T[(/icoi'7ey S aperai 
ey (f)avipav oSov [ip-^ovTai TiKpai 
ptL Xpriji iKacTTov pco[fiOi S e^ 
115 aXXwv Kpifiarai (p6oi>([oi>T<ov 

T0t9 oiy noTi TrpcoTOii mpi [SooSeKaTov 75 
Spopov iXavvovTicrcnv a[iSoia tiotl 

Col. iii (Fol. 2 recto). 

yXwaaai- akova^ Xiyvpas 
a p! i6iXoi'[T]a TTpoa[ip]TriL 
KaXXLpoai[ai\u rrvoai? paTpopa[ 
Twp ipa STv/j.(paXi9 ivavQ-qs Mf[ra)7ra 
135 TrXa^l'mrof a [©;;/3a]i' in 

Kiv rey ipa^[iLvo\v vScop 

niopai avSp[a<ni' a](x//[aTa]t[crt nXiKOif 

ttolklXov vp[vov o\Tpv[v\ov vvv (.[raipov^ 

1614 PINDAR, OL. I. II, VI, VII 


ara^rj Xapii ei'/cXea fiopcp[av 

ii 8' (TVficos iiTTO KvWavai opos 
1 20 Ayy^aia /larpcoe? ai'Spe^ 

vatfTaoi'T(? eScopTjaai' Oewy 

KapvKa A[[e][]iTa.iy 6vaiai9 

TToWa Srj noXXaiaiy Epfxay evaflSi^^cos 

or ayiovas (\€L 
125 fjLoipay T aedXooi' ApKaSiav 

T iVai'Opa TL 

/ Kii'09 03 nat 2,waTpaTOV 


crvu fipvySovTTcoi narpi 
130 So^ay e^o) tiv fm 


Ati'fa- 7rpco[Toy fi](v H 
140 pai- TlapOivia ir KiXa Sr]crai 

yi'coi'ai t['] e7rei[T' ap^^aijoi/ [o]i'([iSos 
aXadiai. Xoyoii 90 

[e(l (pevyofiev Bot[(cTiai' vr 
ifcTi yap' ayyiXo^ o[pOoi 

145 i^vKo/icof crKVT[a\a Motcrau yXvKVi Kparrjp 

ayacpdeyKTCot' aotSav 

146 fiTTOi' Si p^pva^crOai Svpa 
Kovacrav [re] K[aL Oprvyias 

Tav \ip\(ov Kadapci) aKanTco Sicrraii' 
apTia fj[TiSofj.ei'0? cpoiinKOTre^ai' 
150 aix(p'eTT[fi. Aajiarpa 95 

end of column 

Col. iv (Fol. 2 verso). 
7 lines lost [vni'ia>v iraiS A<ppoSi]Tai 

[I'ly (aXaiTov ofiocppoi'os ivv\a^ vii. 6 \^AiXLOLO re vvfxtpav 


[Kai iyoo viKTap yyrov Moiaay 
160 \8ocni' aeOXocjiopoii ] 

[ai'Spacrii' nffiwcoi' yXi';ci;i'] Kapirov 
[(ppei'o^ ] 

[OXvfiTTia IIvOoi T€ I'lKCOy 

[Teo-cric S oX^ios oV [ ] 
165 [cpapai /carex"]"'"' ayacrOai 

[aXXore S aXXoy^ enonTevei Xapti 
[^wdaXfXLOi a]SvixeXei 
\6aiia jxev (pop'/ityyi naficpco 
[voiai T iv e.vTi^at[v av\Xa>v 
170 [kul I'vy VTT a/ji<poTfp]a>i" 

[crvi> Aiayopa Kan^ap] novvovTiav 


[PoSov iv6vpay^av ] 
175 \p(hpa TTfXccpioi' ai'Sp]a nap AX(p(ia>l 
[(TTicpavaicrafiivov J 
[aivtaca wvy/ia^ anoifa] kul 
10 [napa KacrraXia ] 

[iraTfpa re Aapayr}TOv a^Sovra AiKa [ ] 
I So [Aaia^ ivpvyopov ] 
[TpinoXiv vacTov TreX^ay 
[ip^oXco vaiovT]a? Apyaat [(r]yi' a l)(^fia]i 
[edeXrjcTCi} TOiaiv] e^ 20 

[ap)(^a^ ano TXairoX\ip.ov 
10 lines lost 

8. The second i' o{ yXvKVTtpav is corr. from f : i.e. the scribe began to wiiie yXvKipm- 
Tepav, which is found in DN. 

4.1/ : so .\BE ; all that remains is the tip of a vertical stroke, which would also be 


reconcileable with ?[{, as proposed by Schr(oeder), but not with f[X7rofiai, the reading 
of CDN. 

9. luK : this form is not certainly attested in Pindar; cf. 1604. II. 13, n. 

KX[f.]|eii' : so CE, Schr. ; kUiC^^v BADN. 

13. (iX/cai: so most MSS. rightly ; dXrar DE. 

13-14. nXXoi]<ri : this passage is corrupt in the I\ISS., which all have ("XXoio-i against the 
metre, except V (eV &.). The Byzantine correctors read tV aXXoicn, but Schr. conjectures 

17. a-t ye: ere tc ]\1SS., except V (om. re). The scholl. remark 6 voCs- e'lrj Se ai fjifv 

TnvTov Tov xpo^ov • • • nXXms" dXX' f'lr] ere tuvt. t. x- kt\., from which it has been supposed that 
there was a reading o-e 8e'. re, which connects with re in 1. 19, seems preferable to ye, but 
may have arisen from the second i-e. 

18. v\j/nv: so !\ISS. except D (I'lv/zols). 

19. Te: 3e DN. Cf. 1. 17, n. 

22. 1. AKpo[yn>'rii'tti. If apfiaTi, which is usually added by the MSS. after it, was written, 
the end of this line projected very considerably; but cf. 1. 145. 

24. ^jeoK : 5eii/ EV. 

Til'' »;[po)a : riva 8* rjpaa AE against the metre. 

25. TLi[a S'] avbpa : SO ABE ; TiV avbpa CD against the metre. 

29. oKpoBiva: so ABDN-, Schr. ; aKpodiiw CN', Zenodotus ; aKpoBiviov E. 

30. 6e : e is corr. from o (?). The word is omitted by A, which has rerpaaipUis. 

32-3. om biKaictv ^(vuv : SO MSS. (mostly dn-i, but a few om). The second syllables of 
oTTi and ^ivov ought to be long, and Schr. follows Hermann in reading <mi (= 0V181) hUaiov 
^(vav. The division between the corresponding lines 68-9 comes a syllable earlier. 

36. cp6o7To\iv: dp^dn-ToXii' against the metre ADN. 

41. ;io[po-i]fi[of ttXoutoi' : so MSS. ; p. 6 ttXovtov (Hermann) or p. eV' SXfiotr (He3'ne) has 
been suggested on metrical grounds. 

52-7. These lines are restored so as to correspond to 11. 89-94. The traces of the 
supposed V in 1. 57, which comes above the second n of Sapaa-Seii in 1. 58, are very doubtful, 
and the firtt syllable o( fa-{6)\a,v, the reading of the MSS. in 1. 57, is against the metre ; there 
is also an uncertainty about 1. 94 ; cf. n. ad loc. The reason for the assignment of all 
11. 52-6 to Col. ii is explained in int. 

59. TTep-ni): so most MSS., Schr.; nip-^n A. 

62. (TtaSov : TTiiSov A. The word corresponds to Ai[ot] | o- in II. 26-7. 

65. n of \Kpe\a-crovaiv is corr. from (o. 

66. /i of ^ef is corr. (v has been omitted by mistake after it ; cf 1. 169, n. 

70. niai : 1. atei. 

70-1. (^iXe[oi'Ti Se MJoio-Qi: a superfluous verse which was athetized by Aristophanes, 
but is found in all MSS. except those of Triclinius. 

75. NJ'ipeot: so CE; Niyp/us ABDN ; Nijp^or, required by the metre, occurs above the 
line in CDN. 

79. [0/joTMi' ye : ye, which is Omitted by B, must have been written. 

80. Considerations of space make the unmetrical form nepas, found in all ancient ]\ISS., 
more probable than n-eip<is, which was introduced by the Byzantine correctors. 

82. aXtou : so BE; neXi'm; against the metre ACDN. 
85. aXXni : dXXoini against the metre CDN. 

88. a T( miTpwmv: a re narpwiou MSS.. which is generally retained by edd., though 
Hermann conjectured nre (or a to) Trarpaia, and Mommsen d t6 nctrpwtoi' from the schol. fcare;^ei 

Tuv (v<ppova jToTpov >} Tvxr] Kn6dTT(p TO iraTpaou KaTe(T\e. naTpaiiav muSt be wrong, but tWO Other 
scholia ()vr(i> 6e eVi TOVTOtv ... 17 iiaTpiKrj po'tpa kokov (pipii . . , and ovtu> Se' Ka\ eV'i Tovrav ... 17 

1614. PINDAR, OL. /, 77, VI, I'll i6i 

TroT^ma kukUv ilya /jwipa would be compatible with an ancient reading Tturpuiia, of which 
Tzarpwiav might be a corruption, due to f/Sav at the end of the previous line. The last 
syllable of 1. 88 can be either long or short. It seems, however, more likely that, as 
suggested by Lobel, the scribe has omitted an elision-mark and n-arpwi' liv was really meant, 
uv belonging to (x^"'- ""fx"" ' support ' is more suitable here than the simple verb ; 

cf. Py. ii. 89 6(6v ... fir av(\fi Tore fiiv ra Kfivav ror' al6' iripots e8<0Kcv fitya kvSos and Ncni. 

vii. 89 fi S' ai'iTi) Km 6(m avixot, and Karf'xfi in the schol. quoted above. jrurpo>i(a) would be an 
adverbial accusative or in apposition to tov cCi/ipowi ttot/joi'. This reading is probably right. 
89. 8-10 letters would be expected in the lacuna, where the ordinary reading of the MSS. 
gives 12, and perhaps there was an omission, f^i may well have been written ; cf. 1. 127. 

92. aXjXco x/jfoi'Jco ; ti'K'Xos \p6vos A. 

93. Considerations of space favour the correct forms Xwiv (i. e. \qov) and fioptfxns (a v. 1. 
in the scholia and introduced by the Byzantines) as^ainst An'hv and popo-i/ios which are found 
in the MSS. 

94. This line, if written, must have been rather cramped, for vios in !. 93 presents the 
appearance of belonging to the line immediately above re^faa-fv (1. 95). 

95. reXfaaev : SO B rightly ; riXea-fv ACD ; TfXtcros E ; om. N. 

1 1 2. oX/3of ap : so ACD' ; oX^os 6' ap the rest against the metre. 

1 14. pai[ftos 8 e| : 1614 may of course have omitted 6, which is found in the MSS., but 
was deleted by Boeckh on metrical grounds. 

116. TrpwToif : so AC"DK, Schr. ; Trpwror BC'N. 

1 1 7-1 8. TToTi]iTTa^t] : so CD (-^fi), Schr. ; TroT-io-rafd ABE. 

119. opor : so Callierges (Rome, 1515), as is supposed, from the scholia (e.g. in D; 
cf. also Homer, B 603 vtto Kv'SXrjvrjs I'lms alni) ; opois ABCE ; Spots DE (lemma) ; ipewv conj. 
Schr. The objection to opos is that the second syllable is expected to be long here. 

121. (SiopTjorav: so AB- rightly; ^aprja-av the rest. 

126-7. "/ioi: so MSS. except A (n/jav). 

131. yXairaai: the accent ought to have been paroxytone. Editors generally place no 
stop after yXoiaaa, explaining dicoVas \iyvpas as a genitive of quality. The papyrus agrees 
with Boehmer, who connected dx. Aiy. with n-raaJf. 

132. 7rpoo[ep]ffei : SO most J\ISS. and edd. ; npoa-ipTroi D ; npuaeXxei Triclinius. 

133. KaXXipoai[(ri]i/ ; the V e(f>€\Kv(TTtK6v is wroiig J cf. !. 142, n. 
135-6. (TiKev. 1. eTiKTfv. res is merely an error. 

142. a\a6«n: so ABD; 1. a^a6«rw with EN. 

144. ffo-i : e'trtri I\ISS. ; fort Wilamowitz, objecting to the poet's address to his poem, 
and avoiding the three predicates without a connecting particle. The second letter oi' fea-i 
was not corrected, but the third was not a originally, being corrected from a letter with 
a tail, probably i or p. 

146-7. 2vpn\Kovaaav : 2vpaKntraaii (YiDY.) is the form preferred by edd. The division 
of these lines does not correspond to that in II. iio-ii, where there are two more .syllables 
in the earlier line. 

149-50. Cf. 11. 113-14, where there is a syllable more in the earlier line. 

150. On the omission of the end of Ode vi see int. 

165. ayaadat : 1. ayaOat, 

167. That 1614 had Cw^dXpiof with most IMSS. rather than fMo<^S(iXp.i,r with CNO' 
is not certain. 

169. Considerations of space favour the insertion of cf which is omitted by BDE 
before fi'Tf](rt[i/. 

170. The stop after (ip(f>nT(p'':u>v is misplaced. 

171. TTovvovTiav : 1. Ttii/ Troi-Tini' with the ]\ISS. The scholia mention a v. 1. ttoi'tui?. 
175. .AX^cimi: so most MSS.; 's\'h(f>f<o(i) A. Schr. 



1615. SorPIOCLES, Ajax. 

4-2 X 3-9 cm. Fourih century. Plate 1\' 


This small fragment from the middle of a leaf of a papyrus codex of 
Sophocles, containing the beginnings of 11. 694-705 and ends of 753-64 of the 
Ajax, was found with a number of other literary pieces which date from the third 
or fourth century. The writing is a small sloping uncial with a tendency to 
cursive forms and to exaggeration of the final letter of a line, and there is little 
doubt that it belongs to the fourth century, probably to the earlier half of it. 
Breathings, accents, marks of elision and quantity, and high stops were freely 
inserted by the scribe himself. The circumstance that this is the first papyrus 
fragment of the Ajax to be discovered gives it a certain interest, but it is too short 
to be of very serious value. A new variant in 1. 699, which has apparently left 
a trace in Suidas, is likely to be right, as is another new reading in 1. 756, and the 
quality of this text seems to have been distinctly high. The division of lines in the 
choric passage is the same as that in the Laurcntianus (L). 


id) ICO Tlav \Jlai' 
695 S) rial' /7a[i/ a\nr\ayKTi Kv\ 

Xai'ia^ )i^t[ovoKTvnov 

mrpaiai [ano SetpaSov (pai'rjO oi 

Biwv yy[poiToi ai'a^ ottuis poi 

Mvaia K[fccai opyrjpaT ovToSarj 
700 ^iVir t[a\j/y]^ 

I'vy y[ap fpoi p(X(t yopivaai 

IxapLooy [S VTTfp neXayeccv 

/loXcov [ai'a^ AnoXXcuv 

6 AdXio^ [ivyi'coarov 
705 ffioi ^i[i'iuj Sia nafTOi evcppcoi' 

753 [f'P^«' KUT rjpap Tovp(pai'](? [to ivy role 
[AiavO vno aKr)vaiai prjS] a<p'fyr' idv 

755 [f C'^l'T iKilVOV it(TlSi]lV 6(XoL UOTC 

[(Xa yap avTov ttjvS f6] ripfpav jtovrjv 
[Sia'i AQava^ prji'ti a)j] ((f)t] Xeycoc* 

1615. SOPHOCLES, AJAX 163 

\Ta yap ntpiacra /caroi'i/rla arcofiara 
[irtTTTeti' (Bapeiaii npoi &\(wv Svcrnpa^iais 
760 [ecpaa^ fiavTi'i oari? ay6]pa>Trov (pvaiv 

[^XaaTtav eneiTa firj /cot] avd pconlo]!/ (ppopijf 
[iceifoy S an olkwv iv6v^^ e^opfj.a>fi(fo^ 
[avovs /caXfoy Xeyorroy] ivpiO-q narpoi- 
[0 fjitv yap avTov erieTret Ti^Ki>[o\v Sopt 

699. Muo-ia : Niia-ia MSS., a reading which seemed appropriate enough in view of the 
close connexion between Pan and Dionysus. But, as was observed by Mr. A. C. Pearson, 
Mva-ttt is probably right. Pan was the cult-companion of the Mother of the gods (Schol. 
Pind. Py. iii. 137), and in Strabo 466 the Curetes are connected with Upovpyias . . . nepi tc 

rfju Toil ^ins 7Tnt^oTpo<pLav ttjv ev KpijTTj jcni Toiii Trji fiTjrpos Toyv deoyv 6pyta(Tp.ov^ fv rf/ 'Ppvyia Ka'i rots 

■nfp\Tr]v"i&r]v Tr'jv TpaiiKijii TiiTroit. The region of Trojan Ida was in Mysia (Jebb on Ai. 720), 
and Ki'oxrm in 1. 699 is no doubt rightly referred to the Curetes. In the scholia on 1. 699 
as quoted by Suidas s.7'. Nuo-ia is the lollowing note : Nutria- op^rjparos elSof. tup yap Apxri- 

tTiiOv T] pkv \\fpiKvvTiaKT] \iyfTai, T) ht Kpt}TtKTj^ T] di IlapiKT) ^i. f] Koi TTvppij^rj with I^). Ni'fjia ovv ra 
}^ipiKVVTia' Nvtriai yap ecrriv rj BepfKvi'TKiKt], KuuttrUi fie r) KpT]riKf]. tv Mufrta yap Kai KpajCTtrii) 
(TTipeXfii fi np)(r](Tis. Muc-ia there has been corrected to Nvo-i'a, but in the light of 1615 NOtria 
and Svalas are to be corrected to Mva-ia and Muo-iaj, for what has Nysa to do with the 
Berecynihian Mother .'' If Nysa and Dionysus are got rid of, everything fits together, and 
Sophocles is brought into line with Sirabo ; cf. also Virg. Aen. ix. 619 buxus . . . Bere- 
cyntia Main's Idaeae, and Lucr. ii. 611 sqq. Idaeam vocitant Malrem, etc., the Curetes 
being mentioned in !. 633. 

754. ac^'tW: the supposed elision-mark and breathing are uncertain. 

755. fleAoi : so L; 6i\fi the recentiores. 

756. TijvS e6\ ripfpav fiovqv. Or Trjpbe y] rjp. p.\ r^iSf^' rjpf'pa L; Tr]hiff ruiipat the 

recentiores ; some editors, objecting to the crasis of 77 r^pepa in Tragedy, write t^8' ?S' 
ripipa or T7}6' fV ripfpa: Tr/df Bqpipa |ebb. The accusative is quite as good as the dative, but 
whether the scribe understood the passage is doubtful, for no stop is required after ^onji/. 

759. liapeims npos 6]fMi> Hvanpa^ims : SO MSS. ; but whether the supposed traces of if are 
really ink is not quite certain, especially as the preceding a is rather large, so that liupda . . . 
dvcrnpa^itf may possibly have been the reading, at any rate originally. 

761. <l)pouT)i: so originally L, corn by a later hand to (ppovf'i, the reading of the 
recentiores. Jebb prefers (ppoviji. 

1616. Euripides, Orestes. 

4-2 X 7-8 cm. Fifth century. 

A fragment from the middle of a leaf of a codex of Euripides, containing 
parts of Orestes ,53-61 and H9-97, written on thin vellum with brown ink in a 
round calligraphic uncial hand of probably the fifth century. Elision-marks and 
high stops at the ends of lines are probably due to the first hand : a corrector, who 
used black ink, has altered the reading in 11. 60 and 91 and added occasional 

M 2 


accents and stops (in 1. 56 in the middle position). This is the fifth fragment of 
the Orestes which has been obtained from Egypt ; cf. 1370. int. It is too short to 
have much bearing on the divergences of the MSS., but has a new reading which 
may be right in 1. 61. The verso is in much worse condition than the recto. 1623 
was found with 1616. 


'S'i ['J'^f' y^P [fl'y y\y)^ Mei-eXecoy Tpotai ano 

[\ifx]fva Se Na[vTr\ietoi^ eKuX-qpcov TrAarr/ 
55 [a\KTai(Ti.v op/xiL Sapov e(c [Tpoia^ y^povov 

[d^\ai<n 'iT\ay\6us- tt)v Se S[rj ttoXvcttovov 

EXei'Tji' (f)vXa^ai i'vktu prj [Tt9 (laiScor 

piQ rjpipav (TTii'^ovaav ywv vn IXico 

Tra\iS'f^ TiOvdcTiv eis TreT[p(ov iXOt] fioXa^ 
60 [Trp]ovTre/iy^(^ eis Slop r]pi[Tipov ecmi' S eao) 

[KXaiova- a]SfX^[rjv <Tv]jj.(popai T[e SwparcDV 


89 [e^ ovnep aipa yet'eOXiOf KaT\r]vy[(T€v 

90 [CO peXeo^ ?; reKOvaa 6 ojy StaiX]€To- 
[ovTcoi e^ei raS <»o"lr awetpriKfi/ kukoh- 
[irpos Qicav TTt6o]i av Srjra. poi tl napOeff 
[cos aa^^oXos ye avyyo]voy irpoafSpia- 
\fiovXu ra^ov poi] upos Kaa-iyvTqTrji poX[e\i[v 

95 [prjrpos KeXevds^ rrji f/xj;? twos X'^Pb" 
[Koprjs awapxai Ka\ )(oay (pepovaa epas 
[<7oi S ovvi 6fpL\T0v TTpov (f)iX\a)^v (TTeiy\eiv ra(f)ov 

53. [f]is : is edd.. as in 1. 59 and 60. 

58. The supposed accent on irrfixovtrnv is somewhat uncertain, being really over the 
X '■ but in 1. 59 the accent on n(T\^pav (which is also not quite certain) is above the t. 

59. 7rfT[pmi' : n-eVpSi/ Cod. Parislnus 2713; mrpuiv other MSS.; irirpav edd. Cf. 
1. 5S, n. Whether 1616 had fX^r; with most I\ISS. or fX^oi with Vat. is of course uncertain. 

61. (Ti)]p0opaf : oT/jc^npai' MSS. Cf. int. 

91. The first hand may have written 3 letters where tjk was substituted by the 
corrector. The MSS. vary between anelpriKfif (so 1616 corr., the Marcianus and edd.), 
unfif)T]Ka, and I'meipriK iv, but tile original reading here seems to have been different. 

97. (^iX[&)][/ : the MSS. vary between (fjlKwv and (piXov. (piXav edd. w suits the size of 
the lacuna here better than o. 


1617. Aristophanes, PluUis. 

23-5 X 16-7 cm. Fifth century. 

Part of a sheet containing two leaves of a papyrus codex of Aristophanes, one 
of which has most of the first 60 lines of the Plutiis, a play not hitherto repre- 
sented in papyri, while of the other leaf only a small fragment is preserved, which 
is insufficient for purposes of identification. The script is a mi.xture of uncial and 
cursive in a style resembling that of 1599, but somewhat later in date, and 
probably belongs to the fifth century, like most of the extant fragments of 
Aristophanes upon papyrus. The breathings and most of the accents, which are 
fairly numerous, are by the original scribe, who used brown ink ; but some accents 
were added in black ink, presumably by a different person. The stops, consist- 
ing of double dots marking a change of speaker or single high points, are, except 
at the end of 1. 35, by the first hand, as are probably the name of the speaker 
against 1. aa, the glosses on 11. 34, 39, and ,-,i, the iotas adscript, which were usually 
omitted in the first instance, and all the corrections except perhaps that in 1. 13 
and the correction or gloss in 1. 17. An omission of two lines after 1. 19 seems to 
have been made good by an addition at the bottom. 

The corrected text is fairly accurate, 'and shows the same tendency as that 
observable to a marked degree in 1374 {Wasps) to support the Venetus 
(11. 17, 22, 32, "iiO,, 40) rather than the Ravennas (11. 38, 43, 51, but all points 
of minor importance). In two places (11. 4 and 50) it agrees with the Parisinus (A) 
af^ainst both R and V. The only new variant occurs in 1. 49, TavQ' for tov6\ which 
makes no difference to the sense. The difficulties in 11. 17, 46, and 48 are not 
affected, the reading of the MSS. being apparently confirmed in each case. The 
circumstance that the PhiUis begins at the top of a page suggests that this play 
was the first of the codex, as in R and V : the same argument applied to 1371-4 
made the Clovds the first play of that collection ; cf 1371. int. 

I'ol. 1 recto. 
my apyakkov 7rpay/i'[[a]] iUTiv co Zdv K\ai 6eoi 
SovXoy yiviaOaL napacppovovi'yjo'S SeanoTOv 
Tjf yap Ta ^kXriaff b Oipdiraii' \ei ai tvxv 
So^T]^ Se /IT] opdi' TavTO. tco' kskt jjfiii'co 
 5 /:/6rex«'>' ai'dyKi] rot' Qepdnovfya tcoi' kukcui' 

Tov cruiiiaTOi yap ovk ea tov Kvpioy 
Kpareif Saificov aWa roi' ewv ripLffoi' 
Kai ravTa /xei- Sr] -avra- -a>' Si Ao]^[La 


OS OdTTTKoSd TpinoSos (K )(pi;[<r?;Aaroii 
10 ixiiji\f/ii' SiKaiav fj.(/x(pofiai ryavTriv on 

larpos Oil' Kai fiavTLS coy (paaiv [cro0os 

HiKavyoXwvT aniTrffiy^ev fin[v tov SecnroTrjv 

ocrri[y aK]oX[ovO( i Ka[[i]]ro[[ir]]n'[[a]] avO^panrov TV(p\ov 

■[[ovpafTLoy Spcov »;] npoaf]K avTco [ttoiuv 

15 [oL yap ^XiTTOVTfi] TOLi TV(pXois r}[yovp(da 

o[vTOS S aKoXovdiL K\ape irpoafii^a^iTai 

K\a.i TOLVT aTTOKpLvo\iJ.tvoy TO Trapyairai' ovSe ypv 

(y[(t) piv ovv ovk\ fad ott[cos aiyijaopai 

19 'P ';»' l^ll 0/??"'??^ O ^TL TCoS aKoXovOoVptV 77076 

22 XpfM po- ^t a^^ a(pt[X]a)i/ ror dijicpavov i]i' Xumjs tl pe 
iVa paXXoy [a]^y^[s]' Xrj[pos ov yap navaopai 
npiy ay (ppaarjs poi T([y 7ro7 ^(ttlv ovtoctl 

as [ei/fouy yap co;'] vol [wvydavopaL navv (T(poSpa 

6 lines lost 

Fol. I verso. 

32 [(nfpT}(ro]p€i'09 ovi' c«i^6/zj;r coy TOf Oeof 

[tov e/iof] pev avTov tov TaXeTTcopov a-^^fSov 

\j)8rj J/O/itl^Cofj'] (KTfTO^iVaOai filOV (Klie0X[Tl(T]eaiaiTO 

35 [TOV viov\ oamp a>v povos poi Tvyyavn' 

[nevcropi Voy a x/);/ piTa^aXovTa Tov[f Tponovs 
[uvai Ttav-pvpyov a^iKO^"^ vyik'S pT]Se fv 
[toy rco /3ijCo 70117 aiiTO vopicras avpcpepdv ; 

[ti SrjTa ^o]i/3oy (XaKtv eK tcov aTippaTwv 
40 \TTiV(TU (Ta<p\oos yap 6 6eoi eiwe poi TaSr 


[oTot) ^vvav\Ti]<Tepi npcoTov e^iaiv 

[iKeXevae to]vtov pTj piducrOai p [[j?/^]] tTi- 

[ireidfLv S' ipavTQ)' ^vvaKoXovddv oiKa8f[:] 

[/cat Tco ^vv]avTdts 8r]Ta npcoTO)' : toi;[7]co' : 


45 [iLT OV ^ITi'kiy T»;i' iTTti^l'Oiai' 70V 6iO\V 

[(ppa^ovcTa\f CO cr/caiorar^e aoi <Ta(f)i<TTaTa 
[aaKiiv Tov] iJioi' top (Tri[)(^copioi' Tponov 
\tuii tovto Kpi v(i^ : Sr]\y0i' OTit] Kai ry^Ajo) 

\yva)vaL BoK\ii coy a-<poSp [ecrri avpcpepo]!/ 
50 [to fn^Seu acy'Kilv v[yLti er tco vvu^ •^p6i'<in[\ 

[ovK eaO oTTcoi 0] ^p'jcrfxoi fti tovto ptnu (/)f|D[«Tai 
[aW ea iTtpou Ti pil(oi' : i]i' S Jjpii' (ppuarji 

[0aTl9 TTOT iCTTW O^VTOa'i Kai T|^o]u XpLpLV 

[kul tov Siopefos^ r]X6e pij^a] ucov ti'^daSe 

55 \TTv6oipi6 at' Toi' -^ pji^apov] o tl \yofi. 

[aye Si] av noTipoy aavTor o(r1ri[y ei^ (ppacreiv 
4 lines lost 

Fol. 2 verso. Fol. 2 recto. 

1 1 lines lost 10 lines lost 

72 a . [ 100 A . [. . . 

17 lines lost ] ' . je . .cp . . r 

17 lines lost 

4. Tnirra : the accent is due to the corrector, ravru A ; t' (it;™ U ; ravra RV. 

12. a-i7fTT(n\l/(ii : \. an€iTffi\f/(. 

17. aTioKpivo^tifvov : or QTi-oicpiviij^f TOI, which is equally difficult ; imnKpivoiiciKfi ]\ ; I'lTTOKpwo- 
fiivov VAU ; amiKpimfiefos Bentlev. The interlinear writing does not seem to refer to the 
termination of the word and may be a gloss, as in 1. 39 ; but it is not certain that 
anything was written before m, and, as Dr. R. T. Elliott remarks, m may be merely 
a variation of spelling oft ; cf. 11. 33, 41. 

19. The partly obliterated sign against this line seems to be distinct from the abbrevia- 
tion of X^6m{>J?k'£) immediately below and to refer to the omission of 11. 20-1, which were 
presumably supplied in the lower margin. 

22. a4>f[\]<ov: so VAU; R. adds yt. 

32. is : so VAU : n-pos R. 

33. Tuu : so VAU ; om. R. 

34 marg. Similar but not verbally corresponding notes on (KTero^ivcrdai occur in the 
extant scholia. 

37. There was possibly a stop (one or even two dots) after fi% but none is 

38. aiiTo: so R.\U (avro): wvTwi corr. from avTwi(':) V. 
avp.(f>ep€tv : so RV; ^vp-cp. AU. Cf. 1. 43, n. 

39. fiTTfv is an explanation of fXa/cfi/, not a variant. Double dots are expected at the 
end of the line, and perhaps the lower one has been effaced. 


40. TnSi : so V ; rohi RAU. 

42. Whether the papyrus had acfXevcre with YALf or f/cfXeue with R is uncertain. 

43. ^vvaKn\ov6fh' : SO RAU ; (twuk. \ , C[. I. 38, n. 

45. ^vfi](ii : so RV ; ^Di/i^yt AU. 

46. <^pafoii(To]i' : SO jMSS. ; (j)iM(ovTni Cobet. The traces of the last letter suit v. 
but not s. 

48. Tv4>\]ii: so MSS. ; tik^Xos Hemslerhuys. The reading of the vestiges is very 
uncertain, and possibly there was a stop at the end of the line. 

49. Tav6: Toiiff MSS. ravff would be more likely to become roM' in view of the following 
(TviKpepoi/ than vice versa. 

50. xP°^'^^'- so AU ; fitojt R ; eVfi (with y/i. yfVfi ku'i xp"'''? in the marg.) V. 

51. fir: so RAU; es V. 

51 marg. For 4>^p[eTai (a note on pew(i) cf. Schol. Junt. (peperai. nTrni-SXemi kt\. But 

the vestiges are very doubtful. 

52 /ifjifoi- : : R also marks a change of speaker here, assigning fjv S' ijulv xrX. to t}(p(d7Tuii'), 
i. e. KapltDv, and 1. 56 originally to X/j(ffii'Xos). 

1618. Theocritus, fdj'/s v, vii, xv. 

Fr. 7 24-4 X 24 cm. Fifth century. Plate IV (Col. x). 

These fragments of a papyrus codex of Theocritus, originally about 4c in 
number, combined with the exception of a few minute scraps, which are not 
printed, to form parts of four leaves, of which two containing 7(7. v. 53-end and vii. 
J -1 3 are successive, and a third (vii. 6S-117) is only separated from the second by 
an interval of one leaf, while the fourth (xv. 3<S-ioo) may have come much later. 
A narrow selis of the third leaf (Cols, vii-viii) was joined so that the verso corre- 
sponds to the recto of the rest of the leaf. All the leaves are much damaged, 
especially the first, of which the recto is barely legible anywliere owing to the dis- 
colouration of the pajiyrus, and the second, which is in almost the last stage of 
decay, so that decipherment is sometimes precarious. The script is a good-sized 
somewhat irregular uncial with a tendency to cursive forms, especially in a and A, 
and resembles the Cairo Menander Plates D and E and 1369 (Oedipus Tyrannns ; 
Part xi, Plate vii) : it most probably belongs to the fifth century rather than the 
early part of the sixth. Iota adscript was generally omitted. The height of the 
column varies from 32 lines in Col. ix to 25 in Cols, vii-viii. The first hand w-as 
responsible for a few corrections, for the marks of elision throughout, and in 
Id. vii for a number of accents and breathings, besides a breathing in v. 114. 
Elsewhere in Id. vii, i. e. in Col. viii frequently and more sparsely in Cols, iv and 
vii, accents and breathings were inserted by a corrector, who was not appreciably- 
later than the first hand and revised Id. v and vii (not always very intelligently ; 
cf. vii. 101, n.), but apparently not xv, altering a number of readings and adding 
a few interlinear glosses (vii. 110) and stops (vii. 77). 


The published fragments of Theocritus from Egypt have hitherto been very 
exiguous, being limited to 694, which contains parts of xiii. 19-34 (2nd cent.), 
some tiny vellum scraps of Id. i, iv, v, xiii, xv, xvi, xxii (Wessely, Wiener Stud. 
1 886, 320 sqq. and Mitthcil. Pap. Rain. ii. 78 sqq. ; 5th or 6th cent.), and of xi and 
xiv {Berliner Klassikertexte v. i , p. 55 ; 7th ? cent.), and a small piece of scholia on 
V. 38-49 (pp. cit. V. J, p. j6; 1st or 2nd cent.), all of them being practically 
worthless. Hence, pending the publication of the nearly contemporary and very 
much longer fragments of a Theocritus codex found by Johnson at Antinoe, 1618 
is in spite of its lamentable condition the first papyrus contribution of any 
value for the text of that author. The Greek Bucolic poets are thought to 
have been collected two centuries after Theocritus by Artemidorus, whose son 
Theon edited Theocritus alone with a commentary. Additions to the collection 
were made by other grammarians down to the second century, and in the fifth and 
sixth centuries the Bucolic poets were much studied, but afterwards they suffered 
a long period of neglect. When in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries MSS. of 
them make their appearance, the collection of Artemidorus had been reduced to 
a nucleus of poems of Theocritus [Id. i, iii-xiii) accompanied by varying additions. 
The leading position in the MSS. is assigned to K (13th cent.), which contains 
Id. i, vii, iii-vi, viii-xiv, ii, xv, xvii, xvi. . . . Other important MSS. or groups of 
MSS. are (1) B, a lost codex which was the basis of the edition of Callierges and 
the Juntine (both 1,516), and apparently had i-xvii in nearly the same order as K ; 
(2) POT (all 14th cent.), which have the order i, v, vi, iv, vii, iii, viii-xiii, xv, xiv, 
ii . . . ; (3) H (i3th-i4th cent.) with the order i-xv, xviii . . . ; S (T4th cent.) 
with the order i-xiv, l-nna.<^wi Biwi/oj, xv— xviii ; (4) M (13th cent.), considered to 
be the second-best MS. for the earlier poems, with the order i-xvii ; (5) V (late 
14th cent.) and Triclinius (c. 1300) with the same order as POT up to xiii, 
followed by ii, xiv, xv . . . ; (6) AP:U (all 14th cent.) with the order i-xviii ; 
(7) O (lath cent. ; the oldest MS., but still imperfectly collated) containing only 
V. 62-viii, allied to AE. In Id. xv, where the divergences of the MSS. are much 
greater than in v and vii, L (14th cent.), containing v. ^^---^m . . . but imperfectly 
collated in the earlier poems, supports V Tricl. 

1618, as would be expected from its comparatively late date, does not present 
a very correct text ; cf. 1614. Apart from the usual difficulties arising out of the 
dialect and minor errors such as /xer' for jny in vii. 100, ojot for oor' in vii. 103, av 
for 01) in XV. 54, oi'tos for avrai or avra in xv. 67, more serious corruptions occur 
in vii. 73 TO Haj'es for ras 'Etviw, xv. 99 (j)dey^n ri] acji' for (pOey^dTai tl aatp'. In v 
1618 tends to support K against M (11. iii, 115-16, 118, 148 ; 57 and 146 are 
doubtful) ; but in vii the opposite tendency is just as noticeable (11. 79, 90, 109 ; 
against 11. 81-2, 85, 112), and in general the eclecticism of the papyrus is evident. 


In V and vii new readings are rare, being confined to vii. 75 air ((pvovTo for aire 
<f>vovTL and vii. 112 "E/ipw 770/3 Trora/xw for "E/3poj' 770^1 uoTa^uv (both easier than the 
reading of the MSS.), and vii. 93 tv ui jncri. for av wpea, which makes no difference 
to the sense. The difficulties in v. 118 and 145 recur, though in v. 116, 
where all the MSS. except S have gone astray, 1618 has the right reading. 
In XV, however, where the text of Theocritus is in a much more unsettled con- 
dition, there are several novelties of importance. Chief of these is [TiipviTip 
in 1. 9(S, confirming a generally accepted conjecture of Reiske for the corrupt 
a-iiiiJX^Lii or Tr(p\i}v of the MSS. Other valuable readings are oxAos- akaOtM^ in 1. 721 
which seems to account for the variants of the MSS., and 6 xr/y ' Axipovr 1. 4)[i,K]i}dfU' 
which removes a difficulty in 1. (S6 ; but in 1. 38 xareifTres does not solve the 
problem of that corrupt passage. ^)j diro^rAayxflj/s for /lii; rt TiKav^dfjs in 1. 67 is also 
attractive, and iWe for et tl in 1. 70 may be right, as possibly KaKevaat for AaXeC/xes 
in 1. 93. Considering the fragmentary condition of Cols, ix-x, the gains are not 
inconsiderable, and 1618 as a whole is an interesting specimen of a text which 
stands apart from the existing families of MSS. and seems to have been at 
least as good as that of K. That in the later poems, from xiv onwards, the 
condition of the text has suffered considerably since the fifth century is now 
probable, but the earlier poems do not seem to have undergone much change 
between the fifth and thirteenth centuries. On this subject, however, much 
fresh liglit may be expected from the Antinoe papyrus, which does not over- 
lap 1618, and consists largely of the later poems. 

With regard to the order of the /tij/s, the placing of vii immediately after 

V is without parallel in the later MSS., but the arrangement in the contem- 
porary vellum fragments published by Wessely, in which v followed iv and 
xxii followed xiii, xv being also represented, was possibly identical. The 
occurrence of fragments of xv in conjunction with v and vii suggests that xv 
occupied an earlier position than usual, but the absence of revision in xv 
supports the natural presumption that this poem followed, not preceded, 

V and vii, whether the interval was large or small. 

Col. i (Frs. 1-2 recto). 
V. 53 [araaoo S( Kparrjpa fiiyav WiVKoio ya\aKT09 

yTais Nvficpais aTaao) Se Kai aSios akXov t\aLQ> 
55 [at 8i Ki Kai TV /xo\t]s airaXav TTTfpi v (oSt ■jraTija'fi^ 
[kul y\a)(<i>v avOivcrav vmalcreiTai Se -^ifiaipav 
[Sippara ray napa tw paXaKwrtpa tto\ Xukis apvuiv 
[(TTaaw 8 OKTOt) fi.(i' yai'Xcoy tco Flav i yaXaKTOS 


60 [avTo6( fioi TTOTfptcrSi KOI avToOt j3ovKo]\iacr8(v 
[rav aavTQ) Trajfcoi' e^^ ''""^ Spva^ aWa T[if <}f^f^i 
[xiy KpiviL aiO (I'Soi nod ^ovko\o9 caSi] AvKcoTraf 
[ovSff fyco Trivo) TTOTiSivofiaL aXXa tov av]8pa 
[at A)/9 TOV SpvTOfiOf ^a>a-Tpr](xofi(i oy Tai (pi]iKas 

65 [Trji'ui ray napa tw ^v\o)^L(tTai ecrri Si Mopcr\a)y 
. 15 lines lost 

Col. ii (Frs. 1-2 verso). 

81 AacpvLv fyl^ajj S avTai? ^([ipapcvs Svo Trpav ttok (6v(Ta 
Kai yap (fj. UttoXXwu [(piXai fitya Kai KaXov avTw 
[Kpi]oy eyw fioffKco [ra Se Kapvta Kai Sj] ((pepiTfi 
nXaf Svo Ta9 Xoiinai SiSvparoKoi aiyas afifXyco 

85 Kai fi a vraiy n^oOopevcra TaXav Xeyd avTO?\ a/^eXyety 
(pev (p€u ^la/cctj^i' toi TaXapo)^ cryiSov ukuti 7rXr;po£ 
Tvpco Kai TOV [avrj^ov (v aiBiCTL naiSa poXvrfi 
^aXXei Kai pd^Xoicn tov anroXov a KXtapiaTa 
ras aiya^ Tra[p€XwvTa Kai aSv Ti TTOTrnvXiacrSii 

90 K7//ie [yap KpariSas tov noifxiva Xnoi vnavTcov 
fKpai[v(i Xiwapa Se nap av^tva atUT tOtipa 
aXX ov avi^p/BXrjT taTi Kvi'oa(3aT09 ovS aifpocva 
TTpos p^oSa Tcoy avSrjpa nap aifiaaiaiai iTi(f>VKii 
15 lines lost 

Col. iii (Frs. 3-6 recto). 
I line lost 

no TOl TiTTiyl\%- p[T)Tf TOV aiTToXov COy iptOl^Kl 

[oUTWJy X^piS Or]V ipidlaSiTyi TCOS KaXapiVTUi 

l^pia'(](jo Ta? SacTVKfpKoi aXwiri /cay at ra MiKwvoi 

[aifi (poijTooaai ra Tro^Oiampa p'aSovTi 
[Ka\ yap eyco fitcrt[Q) rcoy Kuvdapos 01 Ta 4>iX[wvSa 
lis [cfVa KaTaTpwyovTfS viravipioi (poptovTai 

[rj o]v fitpvTja OT eycor tv KaT ijXacra Kai tv a(aap[Q}s] 


[fi'] TTOTeKiyKXt^iv Kai Tai Spvoi '/X*o TTjiai 
rovTO fiii' ov fitfivafiy o]*fa fiav noKa TitSf TV 8[rjcras 
Eu/xapas iKaOrjpi KaX[(uy /j.aX'a tovto y t(T[a/XL 
V. 120 [r]St]] Tjy Mop(r[cM' m]Kpa,ii'eTat rj ov^i napaia-dev 
(7KtXX]a.9 iwv ypaias ano cra[fiaTOi avriKa TiWdi- 
[K-qyco par Ki'ki^co Mopacoi' Tti'a Kai fv Si Aefcrcretr 
4 lines lost 

127 [a Trai]? ay[6 vSaro^ ra KaXniSi KTjpia fiay^ai 

[rat pi]u (/j{ai Kvricroy n Kai atyiXou aiyfi eSovri 
K\a.L (t\)(oivov Tr[aTe^orTL Kai ev Kopapoiai Keoi'Ti 

130 [Tai\(7i S (pais [^ouaai napeaTi per a peXireia 

[(fii]p^ecj6a.i TToXXos Se Kai cos poSa KiaOoi (wavOei 
[ov]k epap AXKimras on pe irpav ovk ecpiX-qae 
[tIcoi' wtoov Ka[6iXoi(r oKa 01 jav (^acrcrav eSooKa 
aXX eycr) Ev prjSiVS epapai peya Kai yap ok avTco 

135 ray uvpiyy [coljO^e^a KaXov Ti pe Kapr i(f>iXriaef 
ov OepiTov A'aKCDi' nor arjSova Kicraa^ ipiaSdu 
ovS' tnoiras K[vKi'oi(n tv 8 w raXav tacn (piXey^drjS 

Col. iv (Frs. 3-6 verso). 
I line lost 
[Scopeirai Mopacor rav apviSa Kai tv\ Se 6v(Ta[i 

[40 [rais Nvp<pais Mopacoyi Ka\\oy Kpeas avriKU Tr€^p\j/ov 
[nepylrco pat tov] i7[ai'a <f)pi]fia(T[cr]i[o] ■'Tia](Ta Tpayia[Ka>p 
[fvr ayeXa] K>]y(D[i' yap iS cojy pfya [tovto] Ka)(^a[^(o 
[kutto) A\aKcoi'OS t[(i) iroipn'OS otti ttoIk rjSrj 
[at'v]g-apai' tov apvov e? wpavov [vpp.iv\ aXevpai 

145 aiyi^ ipai dapaeiTi Kepov)(^iSes avpyio'i' vpp€ 

nacrai eyco Xov(t]co Sv^apiriSo? H'SoB^i] Xi/Xyi'as 
OVTOi X(VKlT[a\? K0pyTl\TlX^0S ii Ti^v'] oxfl^lfti.'^ 
rai' aiycof ([a-cn] ju Tr,pii' ']] y [el/|^f KaXX\ie]pr]a[ai 
Tais Nvp(pais [Taf apvov o S av naXiv aXXa] yivoifi^av 

150 ai p[r] t\v (j)X\aaaaipi M.iX\av6L0S o.vyTl Kop\aT'\a 

. ' . '.' (sic) 

3 lines lost 


vii. 4 [/c AvTiyiin)s Svo TtKva AvKwneos (t ri n(]f} [«V6[Xoi' 

5 [vawv Twv iT avcodef ano KXiriar tc kui avTco [ 

6 [XoXkiuvos Boupivav os (k ttoSos avm] Kpovay 

7 [(V y (Vfpfiaafiei'Oi mrpa yovv raij Si nap av[Tav 
6 \Xa\Koovoi BovpLvav os (k ttoSos afve K]pai/ai' [ 

8 [atyeipoi 77 TiX[eaL Tf ivcrKtov aXaos i](pa[i]i'[ou 
[■vXoopoKrt'i' TT[eTaXoiai KaTiipecpa? Ko/j-'oooaai 

10 [KovTrco] Tav [laaarav oSov auvfits ov\Se to aafia. 
fa/iij' TO B]paa't[Xa KarecpatveTo Kat Toly oStTau 
([crOXoy a-v]u M[oi(Tai(Ti KvScoi'lkoi' ev^pojj[i]s dvSpa 
ovv[oiia\ Hi[v AvKiSav r]s S anroXo? ovSe Ke Tt9 Kif 

Cols, v-vi lost 

Col. vii (Fr. 7 recto). 
68 [Kfv^a t'I[co Te no XvyvafinTU) xf (TiXivw 

[kui nio^jJ.[ah fxaXaKCCj iiinvrjp.'ivos AyeayaKTos 
70 [avTaL(7]Lv KvX(Kt\<T\TL KttL i[s T pvy\a yfiXos epfiSwy 

[avXr]a]evvTi^i''^ S( fxoi Svo [n]oif.i(v[e]i eh fiev A-^i^apyiv^ 
[eiy St] AvKQinirai [0] Se TLTvpc[i eyyhOiy at[o-ei 
[cos no]Ka ra Hare? rjpdcraaTO iJol^ci? ^ovras 
[vtuy] opos an<p' enoreiTO Kai coy 5pi'e? avrov i6p\riv\ivv 
75 [J^)U«[pla aiT icpvovTo nap 6)(6aL(nv noTafiolo 
evTe )(im' coy rjy KaTeraKeTo fiaKpov v<p ALp[ou 
1] A6(o- 77 PoSonai' ;/ KavKaaov e(T)(aT6m[v]Ta 
aaei S' coy noK \^(]SiKT0 tov airroXoi' evpea Xdpvai 
^(001/ touTa KaK[a"'tau' aTaaOaXiriaiv araKTOS 
80 coy T€ VLV ai atp[ai X]fina)i'66e (f)(pPov ioicrctt 
KiSpov ey aSiiav [paX'aKOiS di'Oeai fieXtaaai 

ovviKa yXvKv Moi<r[al Kara [aT 6p.aTos ^ee viKTap 

[co] /laKapLaTe KofidTa tu dtjf raSe Tipni'd nenoyOfji 
[Ka]l TV KartKXdadijS ey Xa p vuKa Kat tv p.iXia-<Tdv 
85 [KTipia^ (pep^onivo^ ho? [Q)p]ioy e^enovrjcras' 
[atO in] if^OL ^Qioi? ei'ap[i6]nio? wtpeXiS fjfier 
[cos TOL ey^aiv ivopivov av wpea Tas KaXas aiyas 



[(fxavw ei\(TaL(i)i' TV S' vno Spvah' r] y yno v(VKa.[LT 
[aSv iXi]\icrS6/jL([v]o9 KaTeK[(]K\^i^icro 6[eL(] Eo/i[aT]a 
vii. 90 [yo) ixef] roaa etrrcov anfwavaaTO [tov 8]i fJ-[fT] av[6i^ 
f/CT/ycDi' T]ot f<pa[fiav AtiKiSa <piKe noXXa [^]e<' aX[Xa 
\Nvfi(f>]ai KTjii iSLSla^a^v eu (!)[peai fiovK]oX[eoi/Ta 

Col. viii (Fr. 7 verso). 

[ecrdXa ra nov Kn'^i Z[c]fo[i] e[7rl( [6]p6i'[o]i' dyay[i (ftafia 
[aXXa Toy e/c] ■tTa\y\Ta)v fiiy VTTtipo\oi' ottl y afiSdv 
95 ["■Pi^'^lA ^^^ [vTT\aKo[vcr\ov <7rf['] <^[iX]oy f7rA€[o MoicraL'i 
'Silj-i-\iSaL ^[(-v] EpcoTd iUiTTTapov- ij yap [o SnXos 
[TO(Ta]oi' [epa M]vpTov9 o[(rov] eiapo? alya epavWi 
Aparo'S 8 [ra] navra (piXaLraro^ avepi r-qvu) 
iraiSos VTTO (nrXdyyi'oiaiv i\ii noBov oTSev lApicTTU 

100 fcrOXo^ avijp per apiaroi of ovSe *fei' avTo? aetS[fiv 
^oifSo^ (Tvy (popfiLyyL napa rpLTToSecrcrL iie-rdipoi 
o)y iK 7raiSo9 Aparo? vtt oajeoi' aiO'-er' ipcori 
TOV fioi 11 av Op6Xa9 tparou [TT]e8ou coarf AeAoyvay 
aKX-qTov Ki[LvoYo (piXai 6[y )(]6(/oay epe/Vaiy 

105 tiT (CTT apa ^iXiio^ o paX\Oa\Ko'i (in ri9 aAXoy 

Kii piv Tavff epSoi9 0) n[ai'] (piXc /xr) tl crv waiSf^ 
ApKaSiKol aKiXXa[i](Tii' vtto TrXfvpai re Kal coplov]? 
[T]aviKa paaTt^oKi' ot€ Kpea tvt&o. napeirj [ 
(I 8 aAXuy u(vaai<! Kara peu xpoa navT [oi'fYfO'cri 

«y aKaXi]4>ais 

110 SaKi'upet'o^ Ki'a[(Taio^ Kat eu Ki'iSaiat [Ka6(vSoti 
[e(]_r;y 8 HS[(o]i'a>i' p(:[v e]u wptai y^(ipaT[t picraco 
\Eli\pui 77a[/o] noTa/xoi T[(^Tpappei'o[i (yyvOeu apKTOv 

€1/ 8i 6i\_pi\L TTVfXaTOlCrt [Tr]a[p] Ai^di^OTTicral l'[opiVOli 

TTfTpat [vTr]o BXepvooi' 66ei' ovk(ti JV«[iXoy oparoi 
115 vpp([9 8 T](TiSoi Kal Bvl3Xi8o9 a8v XfiTrofxey 

[ua^pa K[ai OiKev^vTa ^av\&\a,s [«5]oy anrv Aiycova^ 
[(o p\dXo[i<TU' Byocore]? ipf\yQopii'\oi(nv opo[LOL 

Some columns lost 


Col. ix (Frs. 8-16 recto). 

V. 38 [aAAa Kara y]i'Wfiat' an[(l3a rot To\tTO var €(7r[ey 

[Ta>ii\TT(:Xoh'ov (pepe fioi K[ai rav] 6o\tav Kara [Koanov 

40 [aix(f)\6i<; OVK a^co tv TeKi'[oi> /Uo1/3/L(Ci) SaKi'[ft ivrro^ 
[Sa]Kf}V€ [o](Ta-a di\m )(^<oXoy [S ov S]ei tv yti{ia6ai 
[fpTTOJ/xfly ^pvyia Tov pyLKKOV -rratyrSi Xa^yoiaa 
Wav Kvv e]iT<B /caXfcroi' r'^av avXnav] ayrroKXa^ov 
[w 6eoi oa-aro]^ oX[^]o^ '"'^[^ '^"' noKa To]yTo nlepaa-ai 

45 iXPV ^" KaKo]t' pvppa[K(? ai'api6]fioi K[at apeT]po[l 
[noWa rot co nT]o\([pat( neTTOir]Tai KaXa epy]a 
[e^ o) er aOavaroi^ o TfKCoi' ovSeti KaKoepy]o': 
3 lines lost 

51 a[Si]a-Ta [Fopyoi ti yu'oiptOa TOi noXepicrrai 

i7r7r[o]t t[co] §[a(n\r]0^ avep ^tXe prj pe naTrjarj^ 

[o]p6o? a[u](aT[a o nvppoi iS a)? aypio^ KVi'o6apar]^ 

"[ "] 
Evvo (TV (p([v^rj Siay^prjcTHTai TOv ayovra 

55 a»>a[6]riv ij[iya\(0^ on pot to Pp((po9 pfi'ii evSor 

6ap[<7(i npa^ivoa Kai Stj yiyivr^ptB oma-div 

Toi S [((iav €? ^wpai' KavTa (rvvayapopai r^Sr] 
I line lost 

[e(f n]ai[8os aTTfvSmpei 0x^09 noXvs apptr €iTipp]u 
60 [«^] avX[a^ w] pq[Ti\p €y[coi' ft) TfKua ■!Tapev6i\i.[v] 

(vpapi[s:] (19 Tpoiav ^[(ipcopfvoi rji']6oi' Ax^ioi 

[Ka]X\taTai TraiSwi' -nliipai drjv navTa] TeXeirai 

[Xpria]p(os a Tt[pi<T^VTl9 arrcotxeTO 6ia]TTi^a<Ta 

[wafya yvva[tK(9 icravTi Kai coy Ztvi ay]dy(ff Hpai' 
65 [6aaa]i np[a^ii'oa Tiipi ras] ^^^[ay o(t<to9 o]piXo9 

[^€o-7re(T£oy Fopyoi S09] Tav X^P"- /^L''' Xa\0i Kai tv 

[Evi'oa EvTVXtSo? TTojr'ex' airay pr] [a]TrorrXayx6r]'i 

[naaai ap €£(7ei'0a</jesl cnrpi^ ^x^v E[v]i>oa. apaiv 

[oipoi SdXata Sixa pfv] to Ofpicrrpioi' Ti[S]r] 


Col. X (Frs. <S-i6 verso). Plate iv. 
XV. 70 \i(jyLcyT'aL Topyoi 7ror-[T(M Alo^ (-\6( yeroto 

[evSaifiai^' wvOpunre [(pv\a(T\(Tiv r oi>TTiyovo[v /ijeu [ 
[ovK eiT i'ljiLv fxey ofi[(os Se] (j)vXa^ofjLai 0)(\o9 aXadea^^ 
[coOivvd] a)cnre[p ves 6apa'(]i ywai (y KaXco ef/xey 
[Kdi ojpa^ KriTr([tTa <piX a\v8paiv w KaXco e[ir]9 

75 [ap-jJ-i TTipiar]TiX'\X'\ai[v ^pijarov KhiKTeipporo^ a[rSpo9 
[(f)Xij3fTat] Eyy[oa. appiv a]y 00 SeiXa [t]v fii[a^(:V 
[x'laAA;(T[T ei'15o[£ natraL Tav t']vov €([77'' ajroKXa^as 
\TIp]a^i[voa] TTo\yay coSe ra 7ro(/c]iXa irpaTo[v adptjaof 
[AeJTTra [kui coy ■^(^apieuTa Oewv nepoi^]a.[iJ.aTa cpa<Teii 

80 [7ro]7'_i'[i AOrjvata noiai acj) iirovacrai' epiQoL 

3 lines lost 
[avTO'i 8 ojy OarjTO's err apyvpias KaTaKeiT]ai 

85 [KXiapa) irparoi' lovXov ano KpoTac^uiv] K[aTa]QaXX(o 
[0 TpKptXrjTOi ASooi'ii Kr)i> A-)(epov]ri (p[iX]r]6eL9 
[navcraad o) Svaravoi avavvra ;c&)7iXX]oi(ria]( 
[Tpvyovi'i iKKvaicriWTL TTXareiacrSoiaaM a\nav]Ta 
[//a noOiv a)v6p(i)TTos ti 8e tiv h KoiriXat et/ie]? 

90 [Traaaapfuoi (niraaae SvpaKoatai? eTTj-aalo-eiy [ 
[coy ei8r]S Kai tovto RopLvdiaL apes ai'coOd'] 
[coy Kai Be\X€po<pQ)i' UiXonovvacTKTTi XaA]€i;o-a( [ 
\Sw\pta-8[iv 8 (^((TTi So\Ka) Tot9 [/i]a)p[i(e]acrL 
pj] (^vq M[eA(TCo5ey oy apcoy] KapTepo[s] eij] 

95 7rAa[j/l (v[oi OVK aXeyco py poL Kevea^i' airopa^ifs 
(T[L\yr) TIp[a^Li'oa piXXa rov A8wvi\v anSiytv 
a Tas Apyi[ia9 6vyaTr]\p [noXviSpis a]oi[5oy 
arty Kai [TTepv](nt' tov iaXydpov aptarevae 
(pOey^ii [rt] acj) oiSa KaXo[i' SiaOpvuTerai rjSi] 
100 8e<nT0Lv' [a] PoAycoy rt Kai I[8aXiov itpiXricras 

V. 53- Ihe veslii;es of 11. r,3, 56, 58, 60-2, and 65 are too slight to give a real clue. 

57. wr,X]AaKif : so KH°.\1''. (and O according to Wilaniowitz, who, however, elsewhere 
states that this MS. begins at 1. 62); T«T/j(iKir IMPQTH'. There are fairly distinct traces 
of X, but possibly it was corrected from or to p by the first hand. 

87. 7vpu> : the o) seems to have been corrected from nv. 


III. xv\k(i : so K ; «' Z}i\ifi or x v/ines the rest. 
fpf^t,TSfr[e : somostMSS. ; tptOiCfTe K'MV. 

114. fyo) : so MSS. ; fyi>u edd. since Brunck. Cf. 1. 116, where 1618 has (yav, but 
most MSS. and edd. ey<i>. 

115. (pnpeovTcii. : so KOHA ; TvoTfovTtti JMPQTV, V. 1. in schol. 

116. [v o\\j: Tj is omitted by OPTQ' Trie!., but must have been written here. 

liffivrjrr' : so KP (^f/jratr') according to Ililler; but according to Wilamowitz KP have 
fiefiva hke MHA'E, others reading fit'/iraa'. 

ot: fo MSS.; ok' Tricl., edd. For fywf cf. 1. 114, n. 

1 18. M'"' To/ta : SO K yp. (oxa /lai' TTora Tie rot 8rj(T(is) M"PQT'H'S' Ti id. ; fiav the rest ; 
/loK Toi Wilamowitz. 

TftSc : so K ; relvSi P ; t>>8€ Q ; t^& MOAS. 

121. [o-ici\A]as iwi': the reading is uncertain, but no variant is known. 

129. <7];^oii/oi/ : so ASL ; n-;jiTOj' other MSS., edd. 

144. Toi': so ;\ISS, except K'' {rav; so edd.). 

145. Kepovx'Sei '. SO MSS. KtpouXiSes and KfpouXKifif? are vv. 11. in the scholia ; Kfpoi'nSfr 

146. \ip[i/ns : SO ]\I.\E ; but the vestiges are too slight to decide with certainty between 
this and Kp<i[fat (KOP). 

148. r] y [e'fif : so KO &c. ; r) c'pe IM'PQ Tricl. ; v ye p( Schaefer. Cf. vii. 88, n. 

vii. 5-6. The v of avTui[ has a stroke through it in the black ink used by the corrector, 
and it is not clear whether he rewrote that letter or was making a flourish at the end of 
Kpavav when inserting 1. 6 in its proper place. Line 7 was placed before 1. 6 by the first 
hand. The final letter of xpavav is not much like v in either place, but no variant is known. 

8. c(^aii'of is the reading of the MSS., corrected to v<f)aivov by Heinsius, comparing Virg. 
Eel. ix. 42 Icntae Icxunt utnhracida iiites. All that survives in the papyrus is an accent by 
the corrector (as is that in 1. 12) and traces which are reconcilable with (\>a and v. 

10. The first hand apparently wrote ar]pa. 

12-13. It is not certain that the fragment containing f[ and ovi'[ at the beginnings of 
lines is correctly placed here. 

13. (iiK : apparently corr. from viv, rather than vice versa. p.iv ]MSS. ; viv edd. 

69. The first hand perhaps wrote AyiaraxTos like P. 

70. ni/TOi<r]i>' : so (or avTolni) ^ISS. ; axiaiaiv Schaefer ; aurais fV Valckenaer. The 
traces of a letter preceding v do not suit e. 

71. The V of avkT)ii\fvvTi seems to have been corrected or added by the second hand, 
which crossed out the superfluous v at the end. 

73. TO Sni/(f : 1. Tof Sfff'as (or ^fi/f'as) with KMO &c. ; ^fw'ns PS; a v. I. ^afOas (i.e. 
Ziivdas) is recorded by the scholia. 

74. ap4>' fTTOKfiTo : so Ahrens; ('ip<p(K(wuTo Wil. with KPH ; au(}>crro\flro OSQAE 
Tiicl. ; in M 1/ is corr. from X. The apostrophe does not necessarily imply that the scribe 
regarded a/Kp and fTro^en-o as two words ; cf. e. g. v. 116 KnTrj'Kada. 

75. nir' f cf-voi/To : (iiTf KpvovTi ^ISS. The intransitive use of (pva is very rare in 
early writers, but occurs again in Theocr. iv. 24 Ka\a ndira (pwim (where, however, HS 
read ^Coirai) and in Mosch. iii. 108. air' «j)vovro removes a difticuhy, but may be only an 
emendation or a slip due to the other imperfects ; cf. .xv. 86, n. 

78. The first hand wrote aicrei and seems to have omitted | of Xnpinf . 

79. aTaa6a\lq<nv : SO ^I J aTaa-da\iai(Tiv KP. 



80. \\(ina)v6di : Xfi/xwj'o^fi' KP ; Xft/jucvoffi i\r ; Xct/zaKo'^f the rest (?). Above the vo the 
corrector has apparently crossed out a grave accent by the first hand, which at the end of 
the Hne seems to have written lova-at like P. 

81. dvBfcri : so K; 1. dvfieaa-i. 

82. [(7T]i!/:inTos x^e ; SO KP &C. ; aTOfia f'y\ee M. 

83. Kofiaxa: the MSS. wrongly accentuate this paroxytone. 

mnoi(l€[ii : onfe is very doubtful, and wfTrer . . might be read ; but no variant is 

85. f|f7ro'i/i;o-nt : SO most MSS. {(^emima-cii) ; e^(Te\ea-<ra9 OM and V. 1. in the scholia. 

86. f/ioi: so most MSS.; f'ntv P, edd. 

88. rj y viro : ri v-nd MSS. There is room for two letters between i; and u, and y is 
uncertain; but cf. v. 148. 

go. mTenavcaTo : SO moSt MSS., edd.; (we7Tav<Taro K. 

92. Kriji eM[a^a]i' : Krjjxk hlha^av MSS. apparently. 

ev t.'i[pf o-i : m apfct MSS., a reading which may well be due to the proximity of dv' apea 
in 1. 87. Cf. int. 

94. 07T1 y aeiSuv. SO O Tricl. and v. 1. in the scholia. The vestiges are very faint, 
but do not suit m tv yepmpi{i)i', the ordinary reading. 

96. 17: 1. >;. 

98. ApoTot: so KMPQA'; "Qpams SA- Tricl. 

100. pfT : 1. ^ley'. Cf. the next note. 

lor. pfTnipci : pfynlpoi MSS. except P {ptyaipei.). Probably the first hand wrote ptympoi, 
and the corrector altered it wrongly, being apparently under the influence of the incorrect 
P(t' in 1. 100. The r is clear ; p.€-yaipni (cf. 1. 102, n.) cannot be read. 

102. The first hand had divided wrongly aiff it, which the corrector altered by a stroke 
connecting 6 and t ; cf. xv. 70, n. 

103. 0/xoXiif : so KM ; 6p6\ov HO ; opiWov with a> suprascr. P ; MnXea? Ahrens. 

W(TTC : ]. ofTTf. 

104. ki[Ivo]m : so KMP &c. ; rrpoio H. Above the k is a superfluous accent added 
by the corrector. 

(pflcrati : the corrector apparently added an accent above (p, but crossed it out, adding 
one over la, though that is really more like a rough breathing. 

105. €ir' (o-T apa <ti\lms: SO MSS. CXCCpt S (elVf <t.iip' iarlv). 1618's accent On ^iXiVof 

should have been circumflex. 

106. Kf I : so S, edd.; kiju the rest. 
Tuid' : so H &c. ; raiV KMP. 
Ipboit: so KMPE'; ?pSe.s HSE^ 

o-v : so K" ; tv most MSS. and edd. 

108. ^aoTifoui/ : ^naT4a-So(€c MSS. apparently. 

109. vfvtran: so most MSS. ; i/fto-eisK; viiaoisVS. What the first hand wrote instead 
of nXXwf is obliterated. 

no. With the gloss on (v Kvihmai cf. schol. kw8i) v<^' ijpaix, dKa^rj(pr] Sf vtt' '.\ttik(OI'. 

111. tipfi/i : oi/'/jfff', KMP &c. 

112. [E/3]poj 7To[p] TTora/iu : a new reading. The first hand wrote [E/i]po;' ""[/i] irumpm'. 

(fipov nap nor. S ; dpov nitp tiot. KMOPHA. Cf. int. 

i[f]rpap/ifra[f : SO most ]\ISS.; (texXipffot K yp. MPTQ' ; TfTpajipimv some late MSS. 
The corrector at any rate must have read -pe'ros, not -pivov. 

1 13. The first hand wrote Ai|^5iWoi(n. 

116. Odffujira : so .S and schol. ; oiVfiiKrnt O ; oiVtOi'Tff the rest ; OiVoiJvra Ilecker. 


XV. 38. To^ro Ka-'enr'fs: tovto Ka e. KL : t. KnXuv f. PHS'AE ; t. raX' f. some late 
^ISS. ; ToO riixa f. or va\ KaXi'm (Initt the old ed(l. Cf. int. 

41. [Su]Kpvf : so I\ISS. ; S(iit(iu' edil. 

[ojtrira SiXfis : SO KP &c. ; oaa eWXfif HS. 5 is coiT. rroni X or TT by the first h.nnd. 

42. 7!m]<Ti^e : so most IMSS. ; 77aiSri K. 

54. Evvoa (TV </)<[>'^';: Ewoa oi 'ffif'/ iMSS. It is possible that o was added above the 
line after a[, hut the a of av was not corrected. 

59. f7ri/)/)]fi: these two letters are on a separate fragment of whith the position is 

60. €y[a>u M TfKm 7rnpfi'5e]i[i'. The supposed 1 is represented by the tip of a stroke 
above the x of A^ntoi in 1. 61, which suggests t or p. The MSS. vary between T«'/<ra eiVa 
77. H'SW Tricl., 3> rtxra ura n. AEL, and m TeKva IT. KPH^ The objection to the 
restoration of either of the first two readings is that irnpevei]i[i> would not come at the right 
point and with 7ral/)[fi'^fii' the last letter or two would be e.xpected to be visible, whereas 
a vestige of ink at the end of the line is too near the supposed p to be the final v of (i'dn]v 
and seems to be the accent of .\xnwl. 

62. [<n]\Xi(Tr(ii : so D and another Paris ]\[S. according to .\hrens, and a Venetian 
i\IS. according lo Ziegler ; Ki'Miare P ; /cnXXiVra K &c., Wil. 
64. Bpav : so KP ; "Hpiji' most IVISS. 

67. uvras : aira^i) or avTii JMSS. ; iwra Wil. 

fi7 [a]iToit\ayx6ns '■ fr] ti (or Tv) TrX.y/rj^nr IMSS. inoTrXayxdfif, an aorist often found in 
Homer, may well be right. For the hiatus cf. e.g. the reading of the MSS. in vii. SS. 

68. exiv : so most ]\ISS. ; €\€ KH. 

afia}v : so most j\ISS. rightly ; Swpd K : Spais P. 

70. Vopyoi : SO most MSS. ; Fopyw KE. For the stroke connecting ttot and rw (by 
the first hand) cf. vii. 102, n. 

fj.^f : uTi :\ISS. Cf. int. 

71. (j)v)\acT\nfV : so S ; i^vKacrcreo the rest. 
T 0VTiex'""\j' '• '• i'(l/i7r€;(oi>(.[i'. 

72. <jw\a^opnL : so IMSS. ; <^DXa|oi>ni the ancient editions. 

a\aB(u[s : iidfws K ; ddpdwi PA ; iWpms M : a0p6os (sometimes after o;^Xos) other MSS. ; 
ddapeas Ahrens. a\u0(o>s accounts satisfactorily for the reading of K and the attempts to 
emend it. The traces suit s <i very well. 

77. fi/]8o[i : if €>']«i[i', the usual form in the IVISS., had been written, part of the i- would 
have been expected to be visible ; but this is not certain. 

86. .\Sa)i'is- o Krjv .\xfpov]Tt tp[i\]Tideii : "aS. 6 ic^i- 'Ax- (pihelrai most MSS. apparently 

{<f>i\rirat K) ; 'A8. or k^v 'A^. <l>i\f'iTai PV ; " \ba>v os k'tjv \\x- c^iXfirat AhrenS ; "ASmwr 6 k^k 'A;^, 

(t>i\riT6s Reiske, which comes near the reading of the pajiyrus. S for ot relative, though 
common in Homer, seems to be very rare, if found at all, elsewhere in Theocritus ; but 
0iXi)(9fi't would be a natural emendation to some one who misunderstood «... </iiXfiTfu. Cf. 
int. and vii. 75, n. 

92. XuXleucrui : \a\fipfs MSS. Cf. int. 

94. eir; : or fi^i. 

96. a-iyj] : SO K ; triya Other ]\ISS. 

98. [Trfpi^a-if : SO Reiske for ampxiv or ttcVx'!'' (K). The restoration is fairly certain, 
for though e (but no other letter) might possibly be read instead of o-, there is not room for 
five letters in the lacuna, and the traces suit a- better. Cf. int. 

99. (p6(y^ei. [ti] (T(j>' : (pdfy^tl t'l adcpn V ; (pSfy^f'iTai tl adcfi' Other MSS. rightly. 

100. roX7ws : so K ; yoXyci or yoXydr the rest. 

N 2 


1619. Herodotus iii. 

Fr. lo IO-8 X 13-5 cm. Late first or early second cen- 
tury. Plate V (Fr. 10). 

These portions of a roll containing the third book of Herodotus belong, like 
1092 (fragments of the second book in a different hand), to the large find of literary 
papyri made in 1906 which produced 1082-3, 1174-6, 1231, 1233-5, 1359-61, 
1610-11, &c. About 40 pieces, subsequently reduced by combinations to 25, 
have been identified ; but several of the still more fragmentary texts accompany- 
ing the Herodotus were written in hands fo similar that small pieces of the various 
texts can hardly be distinguished, and two of these MSS., Homer, N-H 
and a tragedy (?), seem to have been actually written by the scribe of the 
Herodotus : we have therefore ignored for the present a large number of un- 
identified scraps. Parts of about 320 lines scattered over chs. 26-73 are 
preserved, the earlier columns being better represented than the later. The 
hand is a well-formed round uncial of medium size, of the same class as P. Brit. 
Mus. 138 (Homer 4'-li ; Kenyon, Class. 7V.r/i-, Plate viii, there dated too early), 8 
(Alcman?; Part i, Plate ii), and the Berlin Alcaeus (Schubart, Prf/. Graccae, 
Plate xxix b), and no doubt belongs to the period from A. D. 50 to 150. Some 
documents of the Domitian-Trajan period, e. g. 270 (A. D. 94 ; Part ii, Plate viii) 
and P. P"ay. no (a. D. 94; Plate v), are written in practically uncial hands of 
a similar type, and the care with which iota adscript is inserted also supports a 
late first-century date. K is written in two pieces separated by a space, and 
T is L)-shaped. The columns had 39-40 lines, and the beginnings of lines tended 
to slope away slightly to the left. The lines range from 21-6 or 27 letters, 
with an average of 33-4. The common angular sign is used for filling up short 
lines. Punctuation was effected by short blank spaces and paragraph!, which 
in the case of longer pauses are combined with a coronis, as e. g. in the British 
Museum Bacchylides papyrus. A few stops (in the middle and low positions) 
which occur (11. 177, 332, and 410) are not due to the original scribe ; but he was 
responsible for the breathings in 11. 180 and 434, the occasional diaereses over 
initial t or v, as well as for the insertion above the line of an omitted word (1. 446), 
and probably for the corrections or alternative readings added above the line 
between dots in 11. 143, 327, and 380. The MS. has undergone considerable 
revision, for at least two cursive or semiuncial hands, which are different from 
that of the main text but approximately contemporary with it, can be dis- 
tinguished in various notes in the upper margin or between the columns, either 
correcting or explaining the text (11. 69, 131, 355, 379, 410, nn.). 

1619. HERODOTUS III i8i 

1619 is nearl)- i^ times as long as 1092, which is much the longest Herodotean 
papyrus published hitherto ; the others, most of which also come from 
Oxyrhynchus (18, 19, 695, 1244, 1375, 1*. Munich in Archiv, i, p. 471, Ryl. 55, 
Brit. I\Ius. 1 109 in Viljoen, Hcrodoti fragiitcnia in papyris servata, p. 44; cf. 
also the lemmata in P. Amh. 12), are quite small. Since 1619 is also the earliest 
or one of the earliest authorities for the author (P. Munich is ascribed to the 
first or second century, the rest to the second or third), it is of considerable value 
for the history of the text. The mediaeval MSS. are divided into two groups 
known as (a) the Florentine, headed hy A (tenth century) and B (eleventh century), 
and (;3) the Roman, headed by RSV (all fourteenth century) : C, an eleventh 
centur}^ MS. of group (a), P (fourteenth century ; mi.xcd) and E (excerpts only ; 
thirteenth century) and other late MSS. are unimportant. Stein gave a decided 
preference to (a), regarding unsupported readings of (/3), which had been preferred 
by Cobet and other scholars, as in most cases conjectures. Hude puts the value 
of the two families almost on an equalitj', with a slight preference for (a). 1619 
bears practically the same relation as 1092 to the two groups, the agreements 
with (a) being nearly twice as numerous as those with (y3). A similar relation 
is traceable in two of the other Herodotean papyri (19 and 1244 ; the others, so 
far as they go, support (a), except P. Amh. 12) ; and the evidence is now 
sufficientl)' extensive both to afford a substantial justification of the eclectic 
method pursued by Hude before the appearance of 1092, and to confirm the 
natural superiority on the whole of the older group. The tendency to 
attest the antiquitj- of suspected interpolations, which is so often exhibited by 
papyrus texts and is already traceable in regard to Herodotus (cf. Viljoen, op. di. 
p. 59), is illustrated b\- 1619 in 11. 28 and 69, where rm' xaKoii' probably and 
KaXeojjiivovs certainly occurred, though in both cases bracketed even by Hude, who 
is more conservative in this respect than his predecessors. Other passages in 
which the text of the mediaeval MSS. is confirmed against changes introduced by 
modern scholars are 11. 17, 147, 168, ^^;^, and 411. Here the traditional reading 
can generally be defended without much difficulty, but not in 1. 168, nor perhaps 
in 1. 333. With regard to new readings, in 1. 108, a passage in which the 
repetition of the same word (TKvXa^ had caused a difficulty, 1619 omits the word 
in the third place in which it occurs in the MSS., while modern editors have 
proposed to omit it in the second, and in 1. 267 the redundancy of the expression 
oir TToXAu nfTfitdTa xpo'2-(i) va-Tfpov is remedied by the apparent omission of varfpov. 
The addition of tijs before ev AlyCvy in 11. 383-4 may well be right, but the 
omission of wv after tovtcov in 1. 320 may be merely a slip. The solution of 
the crux in 1. 319, where the MSS. are corrupt and 1619 had a shorter reading, 
is barred by a lacuna ; cf. II. 443-4, n. The other new readings concern the dialect, 


in which respect 1619 is not conspicuously more correct than tlie MSS., as is 
shown by e.g. the forms (hiKauvvTo (1. 19), KpCaa (1. 175), and crcpf (1. 344). 
TTpilXfJ-a, an alternative reading in 11. 327 and 380, though not found in the MSS., 
is known in the fifth century B. C. from a Chian inscription : cf. Smyth, /oui'c 
Dialect, § 350. For KaixjBvo-riv, a new form of the accusative as far as 
Herodotus is concerned, sec 1. 176, n. Regarded as a whole, the text of 1619 
is free from scribe's errors (one seems to have occurred in 1. 374, another in 1. 131 
to have been corrected subsequently) and generally sound, presenting not many 
novelties, but combining most of the good points in both the families (a) and 
(0). Of an alternative recension with great variations, such as that indicated in 
1092. ix, there is no trace. 

Before the discovery of Herodotean papyri the origin of the two lines of 
tradition represented by the MSS. was naturally not the subject of much 
discussion. Editors of Herodotus from Wesseling to even Hude were content 
to assume the existence of an archetype of the two families, and to aim at 
reconstructing it without much regard for the question whether it was 
Alexandrian, Roman, or Byzantine. In 1909 Aly {Rhcin. Mas. Ixiv. 591 sqq.) 
put forward the hypothesis that (a) mainly represented the Alexandrian te.xt 
as edited by Aristarchus, {ft) the pre-Alexandrian vulgate in a redaction of the 
time of Hadrian; but this view, which would cut the ground from the archetype- 
theory, has not gained much acceptance, and is controverted by Jacoby in 
Pauly-Wissowa's Rcaloiclycl. Suppl. ii. 516-17. 1619 certainh' does not lend it 
any support. Jacoby himself is also sceptical about the validity of the current 
archetype-theory, and is disposed to regard the two families as quite ancient 
recensions, parallel to the papyri. But the most natural inference to be drawn 
from the eclectic character of 1092 and 1619 is that these first-second centurj' 
papyrus texts were older than the division of the families (a) and {ft), which 
seems to have taken place not earlier than the fourth century ; cf 1092. int. and 
Viljoen, op. cit. p. 56. By the first century the text of Herodotus had 
reached a condition which is only slightly better than the text recoverable from 
a combination of (a) and {fi). 

Frs. 3, 7, ID, and 20 are from the tops of columns, Fr. 14 from tlie bottom, 
the rest from the middles. The point of division of lines is quite uncertain in 
Frs. 1, 2, 13, 23, and 24, and the proposed arrangement of Frs. 9, 20, and 25 is 
onl}' tentative. 

Col. i (Fr. I). Col. iii (Fr. 2). 

aycoyo]t/y a[7ri/co/iei'0( 26 6 €7r]i^[a]i^i'€o-^ai 27 

ejio-i 6[y ] TOTi 7rai'r[e? 



5 aTre])(^ov[cri 

Col. iv (Frs. ,3-6). 

10 [picBj' a^w9 fief ye ^iyfJTTTJcoj' 29 
[oiToy ye o 5eoy arap toi] V/xeti 
[ye ov )(^aipoi'Tes yeXcoTo] efie Ot] 
[create Tavra einas ei'e]reiAaTo 
[roia-t Tavra irpr^acrovai Toi/jy fxev 

15 [ipeas aTrojiacyTiyaKTaL Ai\yviTTi 
[(t)v Se Tcov aWcov toi' av X]a^(o 
[cri opra^ouT^a KTen'[eii' op^ji] pev 

[Sr) Sie\e\v\TO AlyVTTTL0[l<TL\ OL Se 

[ipeey iStKai]evi'TO o S[i An[is> 
20 [7re7rX?;y//e]i'oj tou pT}[pov ecpOt 
ve [er rwi i]pa>i KaTaK[(ipei'OS 
Kat [toi' piv] T€\evTria[ai'Ta fK 
Tov T[p<i)paTo]<! e6ayjfa[i' ol tpee? 
\aOp[rji Kap]3v(Te[w Kapjivirr)^ 30 
25 8e coy \\eyovai AiyviTTLOi avriKa 
Slu t[ovto to aSiKTjpa epavq 
i(av \ovSe TTpoTtpof (ppivrjpi]'i 
Kai TT[pooTa pev toov KaKcov e^ep 
[yacraro rov a8\e\(pi\ov SpepSii' e 
30 [ovra TTUTpos KaL\ pr]T[pos TTj^ av 
[tj]? tov aTTent\p-^e [ey TTepcray 
[cpOovuii e^ Aiyv'\nTOV o[ji to to^ov 
[powos TI(pcrecii\v qaov [re eiTL Svo 

K€xapri]KOTei opTa[^oLei' 
] Kap^v[crr]s 

Col. V (Frs. 7-8). 

[ |3ao-WT]Loi 5iKa(rTa[t 

50 [ToraTos aTroKTei'€oi'T]a piv 30 
[5e avajSai ey Sovaa a]7TfKTftye 
[SpepSw OL pet' XeyoM'cn err a 
[yp'']v e^ay]ayoi'[Ta ol Se ey"] Ttjf E 
[pvdprjv da]\a(Tcrai' 7rp[oayayoy 

55 [ra KaT]aTTovTa>(jai TTpu>\Tov pev 31 
[5r/ \iy]ovai Kap^vcnjt Ticoi' Ka 
[kcov ap]^ai tovto SevTe[pa oe e 
[^fpya]'TaTo Trjv aSeX(pe[r]i' em 
[aTrope]i'i]V 01 ey Ai[y]u[TrTov Trp 

60 \_Kai avvoLKeY xai r][i' 01 an a^J. 
[(porepcou aSe]\(per} [eyqpe Se av 
[tiju coS]e ovSap[co? yap eco6e 
[aay irpo^Tepov T[riL\a-i aSe[X(per]iai 
[avvaJKeeif TlepcraL r]pa[a6r] 

65 [/ut';y Tcoji' aSeXcpecov Kapl3var][s 
[Kai eneiJTa ^ovXopevos avTrjv 
[yrjpai oti o]uk ecodora enevoe 
[e TTOlrjcreii' eipe]T0 KaXeaai > 
[roi/y jSaaiXyjiovs Ka]\eopei'OVS-f 

70 [SiKaaTai ei Tii eaTi K]eXev(oi> vo 
[pos TOV ^ovXopevov a]SeX(pe[r]i 
[avvoiKeetv 01 Se /3a(riXj?](0i [61 
About 16 lines lost 

15 lines lost 

Col. vi (Fr. 9). 
About ij lines lost vjeaOac 01 S^^vo Se yevoperous ov 

]i<(opei{ov Se TOV aKvXaKos aSeX 32 rjco Sr] eiri[KpaTricai tov crKvp 

105 ]peov avT[ov aXXov aKvXaKa ano ,,ov Ka]L tov [pev Kap^vai^v ijSe 

p]r]^avTa [tov Secrpov napaye About 18 lines lost 





Col. vii (Frs. 10. i, 11). Plate v 
[Ka f/xifirjaao Toy Kvpov^ oikov 32 

[ra efinT]Si]aai avT-qi iy^ov^ir-qi > 

[iv yacTTpt Kai fXLV iKTpot)\(Tav a cKxpuaao-j 

[noQaviiv TavTa fiev] ey rov^ 01 3;^ 

K[e]i[oTaTovi KafiPua]r]9 eiff^a 

VT] €iT[e Sr] Sia Tov AnOv eire Kat 

135 aXXaiy oia [■n-o\]\a [iwdi] av6pa> 

novs KaTaXafj.(3a[i'eii' ] Kai yap ti 
va Kai (K yei'tij? [vov<to\v p-tya 
Xtji' Xeytrai e[\(iy Xa/xjSfcrTjly 
[T]r]v ip>]i' ovo[ixa^ovcn rivis ov 

140 vw TOi aeiK':[i ovSii' rji' tov aco 
fiaTO? I'ovaov [fnyaXrjy voaeov 
Tos fiijSf Ta9 (pipera? vyiaweiy 

Col. viii (Fr. 10. ii). Plate v 
168 vai -rrpoi tov [TraTip]a reXeaai Kv 34 

pov OL S( afji\ii^ovro] coy nrj a 
1 70 /leipooy TOV [Trarpoly Ta Ti yap f 
Kiirov navT[a ex"]'' avTov Kai 
7rpoaeKT7ia6ai Ai[yv]TrTov t€ Kai 
TTji' daXacraav Ileypdlai fiiv Tav 
Ta (.Xtyov Kpoicro^ Si napfcoi' 
175 re Kui ovK apeaKOfxevoi tiji Kpi 

(Til tiTTi npos TOI' Kapifivcrrji' Ta 

Si moi nil' v\y\v w nai Kvpov. 

ov SoKiilV OflOlO^ iivai TiOl TTtt 

\Tpi o\v yap KCij TOI [ior]Ti vioi oioi' 

180 [(Ti e/C€£l^'Oy KaTi[X]nTiT0 7]a6r] 

[Ti TavTa aK0va]a[9 ol Kap^varj^ 
26 lines lost 

TaSi ey tovs a[XXovs TLipcras i^ 34 

ifiavrj XiyiT[ai yap inrav av 
145 [t]ov npo? n[pT]^acTTria tov inpa 
Ti fiaX[L(7Ta Kai 01 Tai ayyiXias 


o(»'OYOo[y 7]v 70)1 Kap^varji ti 
fit] Si Kai a[vTTi ov apiKprj uniiv 
150 Si XiyiTUl Ta[Si npri^acnri'i 
k[o]iov [ni Tiva vo/n{ovai Ilip 
16 lines lost 

Col. X (Fr. 12. ii). 

39 lines lost 

266 K[aii^v(Ti]i TOV Kpoiaov ov ttoX 36 

XOOI fJ.[iTiTTilTa ^pOVCOl Kai OL 6i 

pa7ro[i'T«y paOovTts tovto intjy 
yiXX[ovTO avTCoi coy mpnu] 


270 Kap.^v<n]9 Si Kpoiacoi piv avi-rj 

Col. i.x (Frs. 10. iii, 12. i). Plate v. 

208 ovT[a Ylpjj^aa-TTia Si opcovTa 35 

av[Spa ov (ppiVTjpia Kai mpi e 

210 COl'i^TCOi Sitpail'Ol'Ta utthv Si 


(77r[ora ovS av avTov eycoye So 

Ki[a) TOI' Oeov OVTO) av kuXcos 
l3a[Xiiiv TOTi piv TavTa i^ip 
yaa[aTO iTipco6i Si Uipatwv 
215 op[oiovi TOiai TTpcoTOLcn SvooSi 
Ka [in ovSipnii ann]i a^io 

\p[i'\<t\} iXwV ^QlOVTaS iTTl KiC^a 

7 lines lost 
225 [ti; Si KTiU'iis fJiiv avS]p[a^ <Xi 36 
[(avTOV TToXajTas i7r] ovSip[nji 
[aiTn]i a^io^pfcoj iX]cov kth 
[viis St naiSai i)v Si] noXXa TOi 
[avTa TTOirjii opa okcds p]r] aev 

About 15 lines lost 



Col. xii (Fr. 13). 
286 ^ori6€ovT]a[s 39 

Ta<pp6\v 7r6^[t 

Col. xviii (Fr. 14). 
About 28 lines lost 

;ji7 Kiv [riyy airnj^ I'Vi' Se atei ijrei 49 
re iKTi(T[ay jrjv v7]aot' nai aWi] 
\oiai Sia(p[opoi Tov 

320 Tcoi' eif'^iKif aTr€fJ.i'r](nKaK( 

01' Totai Sya/xtotai 01 Kopivdiot e 
nefiTTf Se [ey SapSiS (tt (kto/xtji 
IlfptafSpioi T(ov TrpwTCoy Kep 
KVpaioii' [eTnXe^ay Tovi iraiSas 

325 TlfiCOpil'lfifVOS npOTipOL yUp OL 

KtpKvpa[iOL Tjp^ai' ey avrov rrp?; 

230 [aTToaTrjcroi'Tai Ufpaai elaoi S( 
[naTTip uos Kvpos eviTi\\\tT[o\ 
About 15 lines lost 

Col. XX (F"r. 15). 
328 rj[icn avp.]TT[e.TrTO}\<0Ta [oLKTHpi 52 

vn[(.i.]^ Se TTji [op]Y!]S V-^ [aa-aoy 
330 Kai eXeye o) nai Korepa t\ovtcoi> 


atpeTcoTepa eari Tavra T[a vvir 

[i\\ov npijcTam- rj TTj'yi' rvpavvi 
[Sa k]i.i ayaOa ra vvv ey[a) €;(&) rav 
[ra i\:ivTa tcoi narpi[ri'iSioi' 

335 [Trap]aXafi(3ai'ea' oy fai[i' tpoi 

[re TTJaiy Kat KopwOov Tr;^y ivSai 
[/ioi'oy j3a]iTi\evs aXriT7][r ^lou ei 
[Xev afTLla-TaTecof t€ K[ai opyqt 
[xpeu/ifj^y ey TOV [o-]e rjKyiaTa ixprjv 

340 [ei yap tl\^ avficpoprj [ej/ avTOi 
\cn. y«yoce] «[^ rj's viro-<^n]v ey 

yp-a a[-aa6a\oi' TTOiyja-avre? e 

Col. xxii (Fr. 16-17). 

34 2 [tre/j'] Kai [tov oikov tov naTpoi 61 53 
[a(pop rjOfPTa fiayXXof rj avroi 
[o'cpf almXOcoi' €[xf"' ccmOi ey ra 

345 [oiKL]a TTavaaL [aicovrov (rjpi 
\a)v (j)i]\oTifitT] [KTi]p.a cTKaio:' 

[fX-q Tan] KUKdll t[0 KUKOr IW TTO 
[XAoM TCOP Sl[KaiQJl' Ta iTTUl 

Col. xxiii (Frs. 18. i, 19. i) 
355 [eTTi T7;y patios 

5 lines lost 
361 [anofj-it'OL eKTiL]i'oy ei pi^v 

e^TTL TOU a 


[Kicm]pa [TrpoTiOeicri noXXoi Se 
350 rjSrj ra pifijpcuia Si^ripn'Oi 

Ta TTarpci)i[a amfiaXov Tvpav 
[v]ii XPVh"- [(rcpaXipou noXXoi Si 
[ajiTJ/y t[paarai (lat St yepcov n rj? 
[Sj^r] Kai Tr[ap-q3rjKU>s pi] Scots ra 

Col. xxiv (Frs. 18. ii, 19. ii). 
t>[ai acpi rovs Sf Se^apei/ov? .56 
370 ovrco St] aTr[aXXaaaea-6ai rav 
TTjf TTpcoTTji' [arpaTiTji' ey rrjv 



[I'Vi' 01 napioi'T(.f\ AaKi8aiix.[o] 55 
[incnv ofioLoi eywo]i'TO TavTr)[i'] 
[rrji' rjfifpTji' Ap)(i]rji t€ Kai Avkw 
365 [nrjL aipiOi-j av San]os Apx[i]r]^ 
[yap Kai AvKconris /i]ovi'o[t av\i' 
[ecTTTfcyoi'm (pfVYOv]cn e[y to 
[T€i)(Oi roiffi Sa/niota]i [Kat aito 

Aaup' AaKeSaLfj.[oi'toL(n Aoopa 

ey (TTOtrjaai'TO [ oi S (ttl tov Uo 57 

Ai'*C|^p(ar)ea cr\TpaTi[v(jap.(.voi Sa^L 

4 lines lost 

. . . S^^eoi'TO Ta Se tcoi' Si(f>i'i(oi' npr] 

380 yl/xara rjK/xa^f tovtov tov y^po 

v[ov Kai urjaicoTeav /MccXtaTa e 

77'Aoi'r€o^ are eoi'Tcov avrotai 

Col. XX vi (Frs. 20- 1). 
aay a TO ipo]r T7]^ AOijrau]^ Tr][s 59 406 [Trrjyij'i ap-^inKTOiv Si t^ov opy[ 60 

ei' Aiyivrji Tavra S]e eTrotr]cra[v 
385 iyKOToi' e^orjrey SafitotcrL Aiy[i 
I'TjTaL TTpoT](poi yap ^ajxiyoi in A 
fj.<pLKpaTiOi] ^acnXiiiofTloi if 
About 18 lines lost 

[y//aroy tovtov iyn'iTo] Miya 
[peiT EvTraXwoi NavaTpo](pov 

[tOVTO' $7] if TOOP TpiU)\v ( 
410 [(77i SiVTipOV Si TTipL Xl]^6;'a- 

[>^(B/ia €1' 6aXaacrt]i ^aOoi] Kara X[.] . . [. 
About 10 lines lost 

Col. xxix (Fr. 22). 

422 aTpa[TiVi(Tdai im Tor payov Kai 64 
OL ay[a6pa>l<TK0i'Ti iwt TOy ittttov 
TOV [KoXiov TOV ^Kpeos O fiVKrjS 

425 ano[TrnTTiL yvpvmOiv Si to 

^[i]0[oy nauL tov firjpov Tp(ofj.a 

Col. xxxv (Fr. 24). 
430 Trapayn']iTci.[i 

TcrT]aa-7rios [ 
T0VT]a)V yap Sr] 7;[i' 
VTrapy(^]o? imi cov [ 






Aap]iiov Trpo[aiTaiptaaaOai 
avvi\]$ovT(5 [ 71 



Col. xxxiii (Fr. 23). 
427 TJ]]v avT[7]v 68 

To]Ti pay[oi 
(rvv]otKii Kat [ 

Col. xxxvii (Fr. 25). 
ncoi nipTj(To]fj.i[v] apiL[l3iTai Aapii. 72 

440 Oi Toia-Si] OTavq noyXXa iaTi 

Ta Xoycoi p]iv ovk oia Ti [SrjXcoo'ai 
ipycuL Si aX\Xa Se taTi Ta [Xoyooi piv 
Ota Ti ip]yov S ovS([v Xapirpov 
aw avTcov ? v]fiiii Si I'aTi ({)v[XaKas 

445 ray *:ar«oT]eco3-ay eofo-ay o[i'i5ei' 

^aXfTray TrajpeXOny tovto [yap t] 

1619. HERODOTUS III 187 

/ifOJI' tOVTCt)\l' TOLWl'Si Ol'S^itS oa 

Tiy 01' TTa]pr]jei ra fid' ko\^v Karai 
SeofiiPOi] 'ifxiui ra St k[ov Kai 
450 Saiiaiva>\i' tovto Se «xH "'^''os' 

-f. 77ai'7[€£ : om. R. 

15. The size of the klCUna fovoul'S anoixaaTiyaaai (ABC) rather than an-o/jacrn-yi'cuo-fii' 


17. op]ti;: (i;) oprr] Schacfef, Hudc. There is certainl}' not room for rj in the lacuna. 

19. ehiKai\(v\To : a ' hvper-Ionic ' form due to false analogy; cf. Sm3'th, Ionic Dialect, 
§ 690. fSiKjfirro (so RSV) is unlikely. 

21. t]pMi : so RSV, edd. There is room for ifj^jMi, but cf. 1. 139 i/j';i'. 

28. 1619 probably agreed with the RISS. in having rav KaKQii>, which is bracketed by 
Siein and Hude ; but 11. 29-33 ^''^ on a separate fragment of which the exact position is not 

31. [fs ncfXTas : om. S. The size of the lacuna makes it certain that 1619 agreed with the 
other RISS. 

49. Cf. 1. 69, n. 

54-5. np[nayayov\Ta (R, edd.) is slightly preferable on grounds of space to np^aa-aydyov^ra, 

the ordmary reading. 

58-9. f7n\tTvop(yr]v : so R, Hude ; eVio-n-ufi/i";!' SV. f.(r7ro/if]"i;i' (ABP, Stein) is too short. 

69. The two strokes after KnjXco/ifi'ow presumably refer to the marginal note (1. 49), 
where they may have been repeated at the beginning of the line ; cf. 1620. ii. KoKaipivovs, 
which is omitted by ABP and apparently erased in C, is omitted by Stein and bracketed by 
Hude ; but if tlie corrector wished to omit it, /iJdo-jiXijiow &<ta(n-n[s, not /3na-]iXr;ioi SiKnaTa[i, 
would be e.xpected in the note. Probabl)' one or more words are lost before /Sao-jiXijioi and 
the note is explanatory, like that in the margin of 1. 355, whicli is in the same hand. That 
the note refers to 1. 72, where /Sao-iXijioi (5iK<io-rai occurs in the text (1619 is defective at this 
point), is unlikely in view of the critical mark against 1. 69. 

I03~4- Vt\lKCOp(U.ov: ViKoptlfOV l^K. 

105. avr^ov aXXoc cTKvXaKa : SO ABC, edd. ; aWov airov (tk. PRSV ; om. t'iWov aK. Naber ; 

cf. the next n. 

108. After Si; the MSS. have tovs axvAaKas, but 1619 is probably right in its omission ; 
cf. int. and I. 105, n. 

131. The cursive marginal note eKTpoi(riia{uv) is possibly by the writer of the scholium 
on 1. 410, but is certainly not due to the writer of notes on 11. 69 and 355, and seems not 
to be by the first hand. Tlie size of the lacuna suits the hypothesis that the first hand 
had omitted aa-. 

132-3. oi)([e]t[oTnTor$ : oiK[t;]i'oi'f (ABCP, edd.) is too short. 

135. [ea>0(]: so RSV (€>^6ev). edd. ; [fwfJet] (ABC) is too long. 

136. KnTaXn;zfjn[i'fir] : before this edd. insert koku with RSV. 

137. Kat: om. ABC, edd. 

143. ABC agree with the original reading ra 8f c\, while RSV rightly have niof &' 
(or 6t ?) (s, agreeing with the superscribed reading. 

147. ((t>"P" '• so RISS., Stein ; €'(cri)<j)<ipff Naber, Hude. t cr] €</)o;«f is unsatisfactory, for 
the supplement in 1. 146 is already long enough. 

149. rat : om. P. 


150. Sf : Kriijjer's conjecture 5i) is not supported. 

168. TfXfo-ai : so ABRSV ; om. E; icaXeirui (=-fCo-ai?) C; fitarrai ? S'.ein. Hude 
brackets this inappropriate word. 

172. npofTfKTTjadai : TTpouKTi^iTafrBaL RSV. 
I 75* '^'?' xptfTd : Tjj yivofxevrj KplrTfi RSV. 

176. Kaiifivcrqv: KafilSuaea MSS. here as elsewhere in Hdt., though in the other cases 
the word belongs to the first declension, and the Attic accusative is of course Ka^Svcnji'. 
With regard to S('/)|vs, 'Oravr]!, and some other proper names in -r)i both forms of the 
accusative are found in MSS. of Hdt. ; cf. Smyth, op. cit. § 438. 

176-7. raSf : om. RSV. 

181. (iKoii(r].i[j : om. ABCE. 

231. Whether €>'f7-fXX]=i[o] (ABCE) or fi/fxeiXn]™ (RSV) is to be read is not certain. 
There is no reason for supposing that in 1619 o was inserted before (tos-, as suggested b_v Bel<ker. 

267. /j[frf7rfira ;(pofa)i : /ifrtV. xp. Z<jTf\}ov MSS., which is too long. The vestige of a 
letter following Xmi suits /i ver_v well, but -j^fiovai followed by ^KTcntna or vartpov could be read. 

v<JTf\M<v is superfluous ; cf. vii. 7 xpwa fxiTiTiet-ra. 

268—9. fTf^ylyeXXioj'ro avTwi '. enfjyyeXov to uvtu (V), eTrriyyeXou uvtw (S), fVr/yyeXXoi' avTw 

(Schweighauser) are all unsuitable. 

286-8. The position assigned to this fragment is far frotn certain, TTep\i in I. 288 being 
doubtful. V or \o'\i. can be substituted for n, and tj, i, v, or n for p. 

319. 8ta(p^opoi : the MSS. are corrupt, having Hid(popoi fovris iuivToia-i {ioivtoI 

RSV). Kriiger suggested <pl(nvT(i for c6vt€s, Reiske supplied oiV^ioi before c'diTfr, Valckenaer 
crvyyfvcU after eavToXut. 1619 was clearly shorter, and the sentence may have ended with 
Sia(/)[o/3ot, for in 1. 320 iiv, which occurs in the MSS. afier ruirwv, is omitted, and the new 

sentence may have begun mi- tov\tuiv fiv\tK(i'. A connecting particle is, however, not 

necessary with tovtosv (cf. e.g. i. 13), and the absence of a paragraphus below 1. 319 suggests 
that 11. 317-21 may have formed one sentence in the p.ipyrus, though the scribe is not very 
regular in the use of paragraphs 

320. For the omission of wi' after tov\twv, which may be merely a slip, cf. the previous 
note. RV have (vtKiv for tiviKtv. 

321-2. i\\T!(pTV( : there is not room for ajrflJTrf/iTie (ABC, edd.), unless 01 before Ko^u'^ioi 
was omitted. 

325. rip'ji>pti\^pfvoi : ripap(6p.(vos RSV. Cf. Smyth, (*/>. iv'/. § 684. 2. The restoration 
vpoTfpm (npiWfpnv RSV) is supported by the parallel in 1. 380; cf. n. 

326-7. For the alternative form irprixfic', which is ignored by the MSS. of Hdt., see int. 

328. [uiKTetpc so MSS. ; [niKTipf, the foim preferred by edd., would be long enough. 

333. ayada to: SO MSS. ; (ri'i) nyada Ta edd. sinCe Aldus. 

339. ft: fif AB less correctly. At the end of the line, where the supplement is rather 
long, producing a line of 27 letters, the division was perhaps flxpi", but only 8 or 9 letters are 
expected m the lacuna at the beginning of I. 340. 

344. (Tcpe, the reading of the MSS. corrected by edd. to cr(j)fa. is rendered certain b}- the 
sl^e of the initial lacuna, amdi, suits the space better than arriXBe (RSV). 

346. 0i]\oTi/ji7; : for rj <t)i]XoTipir! (RSV, edd.) there is not room, if, as is ])robable, there 
was a space after wk. 

351. Either anf^aXnv or pcTf^uXoj (ABC) can be restored. 

353. The sujjplement, based on AB. is rather long, producing a line of 27 letters, and 
perhaps either tj- should be omitted with R (SV om. i;6i;), or t(, or even both. 

355. The marginal note is in the same hand as that in 1. 49. 

361-2. RSV have tKreivniTa instead of tKravov . . . TrapfiifTfS, 

363. cyifoj'ro: or fyera] 'TO (ABS, Stein). 

1619. HERODOTUS III 189 

365. aiptfij] av 2n^]ot : aipiSrjaav Safiloit RS\ . 

370. Srj : oin. RSV. 

372. Aa«Sai^[onoi(7i (PRS ; -^ot V) suits the size of the lacuna better than .\aKffini/u[oi-ioi 
(AB, edd.S 

373-4. no]lXii«[p(aT)«a a]TpaT. : the lacuna ought not to exceed 4 letters, but the omission 
may have been i-upplied above the line, as in 1. 446. 

378-9. e]j^[foj'To: the supposed vestige of ft may belong to a paragraphus. In the 
margin are traces of a note, which might refer to 11. 3&1-2, but is nearer to col. xxiv. 

379-80. For the alternative spellings ■iTpr]]y[ijaTa, npT)]x[tiaTa cf. 1. 327 and int. 

383.- ti)[j: om. ^ISS. But cf. e.g. v. 82 rr) '.\ft;rai,7 Tf (t€ om. SVU) t/; TloXuHii, vii. 

43 ''.V '-^^^tfalji Tij lX(ddt. 

386. npor'^epoi : TtpoTfpnv RS\ . 

406. t\ov opvllypnToi tovtov : tqvtov tqv up. RSV. 

410. The supposed stop after Xi]/iera, which is not wanted, might be the bottom of a 
critical sign referring to the marginal note, which begins :i(fpi) Xi/j<(>'a) and i-eems to be of 
an explanatory character. In the second line ua-ei tt[ or ji[' (i.e. napci) or ms (u[tH can be 
read; the third line does not seem to be >[i]»i€[i' . . . The ink is lighter than that of the 
main text and the marginal note on 1. 131, and the hand certainly ditTerent from that of 
11. 49 and 355 marg. 

411. Kara: SO i\ISS., which continue e«oo-i upyvteav. Stein and Hude lollow Lltz in 
reading Koi for Kara, which is not satisfactory. As Lobel remarks, xard would be expected 
here to mean ' about', especially since most of the dyke was under water ; cf. the frequent 
examples of raTd with numerals quoted by Schweighauser, Lex. Herod, ii. 10. Hence the 
mistake may well lie in opyviiav, for which we suggest opyvias, unless there was a substantive 
(Uoawpyviov, meaning a ' length of 20 fathoms '. 

423. 01 : om. C. 

427-8. 1619 i;o doubt had 81; ravrrj^ a^e (om. RSV) between av7[r]v and to\t(. 

430. 7rapay(i']eT<.[i : or poSsibly (]t 7-a [Souirn. 

434. Of the supposed breathing over (]| only the tip of a horizontal stroke is left, which 
might be interpreted as belonging to a paragraphus. Lines 433-4 would then begin [x]ot 
and [o-( e]|, but this arrangement does not suit 11. 432 and 435-6 very well, and e| is a very 
natural word on which 10 place a breathing; cf 1. 180. 

438. €]nf[iTf or f7rfi]Tf[ can be read. 

440. Otui";: 'Or. 7 AB, edd. ; 'Or. ^ C. 

443-4. fpym' 8e ovSiv m avTtov 'Kaprrpov yivtrai MSS. 1619 was shorter and presumably 
omitted yiverai or cm' avTwii rather than Xh^it/;oi'. 

445. K«Tf<Tr]f(j(Taf : KiiTco]rwaas (RSV) can equally well be read, but is somewhat less 
suitable to the supposed length of the initial lacuna. 

446. plef, inserted above the line by the first hand, is read by all the IMSS. 

447. ToiiovSf : so Hude with RSV ; toIoiv ABCP, Stein. 

1620. ThUCYDIDES i. 

14 X 14-5 cm. Late second or early third centurv. 

Plate VI. 

This fragment consists of the upper portion of two columns and a few 
letters from the beginnings of lines of a third column of a roll containing 
the first book of Thucydides, and covers chs. ii-i4with considerable lacunae. 


The script is a medium-sized uncial of a second-third century type, resembh'ng 
843 (Part v, Plate vi) and 1175 (Part ix, Plate iii). That it is more likely to have 
been written before A. D. 200 than after is indicated by the notes referring 
to alternative readings, which have been added later in the upper margin 
by a different and cursive hand. These notes are very like those in 1234 
(Part X, Plate iv), of which the main text is not dissimilar in style to that 
of 1620, though in a larger hand, and suggest a date not later than the reign of 
Caracalla. The main text may therefore well be ascribed to the reign of 
Commodus or even M. Aurelius. The columns are rather tall, containing about 
54 lines of 18-22 letters. High stops accompanied by paragraphi (which are to be 
restored after 11. 3, 10, 14, and 21) are frequent, and there are occasional diaereses, 
but no breathings or accents. Iota adscript was written in 1. 13, but 
apparently not in I. 62. An omission in 1. 3 is supplied by the original scribe, 
who also superscribed a variant in 1. 67 ; but a slip in 1. (S is corrected by the 
writer of the marginal notes, which seem to be variants obtained from a different 
and older MS., not corrections ; cf. 11. 67-8, n. Critical signs are placed against 
the notes and the corresponding line of the text, four different signs being found 
in Col. ii. 

The relation of the papyri of Thucydides to the vellum MSS., which are 
divided into two families, CG and BAEF, M approximating to a middle position, 
is discussed at length in 1376. int. ; cf. also Hude, Bidl. de tacad. royalc dc 
Daneniark, 1915, 579-85- Of the five best papyri the first century specimens 
tend to support C, those of the second century B, especially in the later books. 
In the chapters covered by 1620 both C and F are defective, the lost portions 
having been supplied by later hands, in both cases from MSS. of the C family 
(c and f), so that Y and f represent different families. 1620, a careful and 
elaborately revised text, agrees with B against cfG four times, and with the 
C family against B twice. 1621, however, which is about a century later than 
1620, inverts the relationship to the two families, agreeing five times with C, twice 
with the B c^roup. 1622, which is about fifty years earlier than 1620 and agrees 
twice with either group, and 1623, which is three or four centuries later and 
agrees twice with the B group, once with CG, arc both too short to show their 
real character. But the customary electicism of papyri in relation to the 
mediaeval MSS. is apparent throughout the four Thucydides fragments in the 
present volume, and the division of the MS.S. into two families is no doubt later 
than the papyrus period ; cf. the parallel case of the MSS. of Herodotus 
discussed in 1619. int. 

New readings in 1620 occur in 11. i, 73-4, 76, and side by side with the 
traditional readings in 11. 61, 67-8, 73 (cf. also Col. i. marg., 11. 58, 109, 112, nn.). 



Some of these are concerned with trivial differences, such as the omission of the 
article or the order of words ; but in 1. 67 the traditional participle is no better 
than the hitherto unrecorded infinitive, and, especially since the marginal readings 
tend to be superior to those of the main text, the new reading proposed in the 
marginal note on 11. 67-8 may well be right. A tendency to smooth slight 
irregularities and roughnesses of style is traceable throughout 1620-3, especially 
in 1621, which confirms two modern emendations ; and, although some of the 
novelties can be explained as editorial improvements, and omissions may be 
merely due to accident, the four new fragments seem to represent texts of rather 
hioh quality, and distinctly support the impression gained by a survey of the 
longer Thucydidean papyri such as 16 and 1376, that without resorting to 
the drastic changes proposed by Rutherford there are many improvements to be 
made upon the tradition of the mediaeval MSS. 

Col. i. 

JeXet Kat aX(Xa) 

[a]7ro[i'lcDTf/30i' Tpoiav ei 11. 2 

[X]ov [aX]Xa Si a-^prijxaTLav .3 

[rla w[po] TovTUiV aa6eyi] rjv 
[K]at av[T]a ye <?'; ravT[a o]i'Ofia 
5 [(TT]0TaTa TQiV npLV y[i]i'0 
[H^va- SrjXovTai Toi[s el/ayoiy 
[viTo''S((aT(pa ovra t[t]]s cpr] 

[pT]]y KaL t[[q)I']] VVV TTtpi 

[awrjeo*' Sia tov^ ■KOi-qra's 
10 '\\oy]ov Ka7[ia-]xr]K0T0s[-] iTCii 12. I 
[Kai piTa Ta Tp'co'LKa [[jj^';]] 
[r; EXXai €Ti] p.ejai'iaTaTO 

[t€ K]ai KaTO}lKl(iTO OKJTe 

15 [tj re yap] avaxa)pr]ai^_ tcjov 2 

[EX\r]vc»v e| iXiov ypoiL 
[a y(.vop.\vr] noXXa ivico 

Col. ii. 

[X ] 

[ 3 Ta irejpL ras [vaijs 
.0 [T€](rcrapas Kat ratxa €[1^)] «ni 
p.aXiO"Ta Kat aX(Xa) 
5 ^ iraXaiTaTT] 

,55 jSaaiXfiai- vavTiKa re «^'?[P] i3- i 
TViTO Tj EXXa? Kai ttj's 6a 
Xaacrrji fiaXXov avTH^ov 
X TO' npcoTot Se KopivOtcli] 
XiyovTUL iyyvrara Toy 

60 I'W TpOTTOV pira'^iLpi 

3 aaL Ta nfpL vav^ Kai Tpn] 
pfL9 npooToy iv KopipOco 
TJjy EXXaSo? i'aVTTr]yrj[ 
6r]vai[-] (paiveTai 6[€ Kai 3 

63 Sapio[i]s AfiiLVOKXrii Ko 
piv6[io'\i vavnr)yo['S vavi 

-o TTOt-qcraL TiTT[a]pay ([ttj 
S i(jTL paXKn'ya] Tpia[Koaia 
ici? Trjv reXevrrjv '[[o]yS[e 

70 Tov noXepov ore Apf[i 

I'OKXrjS Sapi[ois] riXOi- y[av 4 



[X/icoo-e] KaL araaeis ef rat? 12. 
[noXeaiv] coy em to 7roX[L' t]y[i 
20 [yvovro a](p wv (KvenrTOv 
[rey tus] TroXeiy iKTi^ov 
[Boichtol] 76 yap o( rL'i' (^rj[ 
33 lines lost 

'^ fi\a\\ia re 7raXa[£]oTar77 
coll'] J?i^].'7 '"■[/^Iff 7/ Kopiv 

dioolv y]f»'[f]T"[o"] ""^os -''-'[f/' 
75 *ci'/oa[io]i'[y] er?? Se /;'«[^< 
ora iS[ia/co]o-_([a t]^r/[/c]oi'[ 
-a f[<j-Ti. /i]fx[p' ^"^ aurcy 
31 lines lost 

13. i 

X [ovi itroLTjcraTO Kai Prjvei 
no a[r eAo)!/ avtOrjKe tcol Ano 
[X]X[(iii'i TOOL ArjXtoai 4>a>Kaeis 
D T€ [MaffcraAiac oiki^ov 
Tf[y Kap)(riSoviov^ ivi 
K(t)\y vaviJLayovvTfi Suva 

Col. iii. 
13. 6 115 [rtoTara yap ravra tcov vav 
tlkUov Tjv (fiaLvfTai Se 
Kai T[avTa noWaii yei>e 
o.[i9 vaTipa yivofiiva tcov 
T[pa)LKMV TpiTjpecri fliV 
3 lines lost, traces of 8 lines, 
and 32 lines lost 

14. I 

Col. i. marg. rat a\{Xa) ' and so on ' recurs in the third marginal note at the top of 
Col. ii. '1 he preceding word apparently does not occur anywhere in the known text 
of 11. I-S4, ar,d an unknown variant seems to be indicated; cf. 11. 67-8, n. ]« aei or jracri 
or yXfi can be substituted for ]eX<i. 

I. Tpniav : rfjv Tpoinv 1\ISS. Cf. 11. 58, 61, 73-4, nn. 

3. Tf, supplied by the first hand, is in all the I\ISS. 

T.[po] TovTwv : SO A'cF^'GM, edd. ; 7r[pos] t. (A'BEF') is unsuitable to the size of 
the lacuna. 

4. y( : om. cfG. 

8. Twr, the reading of the first hand, is a mere error. 

II. TjSrj, which has a line above it to indicate deletion, is not known as a variant here. 
14. [^ij rja-vxao (a<T)]av : the traces of a are very slight, but v is fairly certain, and there 

is not room for more than 7 or 8 letters in the lacuna, /xij r/a-vxaaaira cf, Hude ; mv 
fia-vxao-u'""' ABEMf -, Stuart Jones. 

17—18. (vfa^xf"^"''] '• fO AEI\I ; (leoxjJ-aTf Bcf edd. 

19. fw( TO ■n:ol[v : so cEf, Hude ; om. t6 AB^NI, Stuart Jones. 

21. TQs] ffoXfit: so MSS., Stuart Jones; re'ns (INIadvig, Hude) does not suit the size of 
the lacuna. 

22. Gertz wished to omit yap. 

Col. ii. marg. Cf. 11. 58, 61, 67-8, 72, nn., and for kc.i a\{Xa) Col. i. marg. n. 

58. Which word or words in this line were referred to in the lost marginal note at the 
tcp of Col. ii is uncertain. The only clue aftbnled by the MSS. is the circumstance that in 
E the I of TrpwToi is by a later hand, perhaps indicating irpHnov as the original reading ; cf 
TTpwToi/ in 1. 62. If not TTpaiTov, the lost variant may have been ot Kopti'6'ioi ; cf. 11. i, 61, 
73-4- nn. 

1620. THUCYDIDES I 193 

61. vavs: ras vais RISS., agreeing witli the reading in the second marginal note. 
rpu'ipeis immediately following has no article, and ras can be dispensed with ; but the 
omission may be due to the accidental collocation of mvs and rpiTjpeif which belong 
to different sentences. Cf. 11. i, 58, 73-4, nn. 

62. TrpoiTov fi' Knpivda : SO BcEf, Hude ; fV K. np. AGM, Stuart Jones. Cf. 11. 73-4, 
76-7, nn. 

63. rauirrjyTjSijrai : SO ABEGM, Stuart Jones; eVraun-. cfG suprascr, Hude. 

67. TTutqam : noti'ia-us MSS., agreeing with the superscribed reading. The infinitive 
makes the statement less definite and is quite appro]>riate. 

T(Tr[ajpas, with the marginal variant [rfjcro-apas : cf. the superscribed ^a in the case of 

16. 1. 4 €<pv\aTTOU and 38 T]TTT]6ei€l'. 

67-8. ([tti] 8 fo-Ti paXia-ra : so all MSS. ; the marginal variant Km rnvra {[rr;] ean pa\. is 

unknown here, but at 1. 76, where 1620 like ABEGM has ern 8( p.a[Xi]iTTa, cfG add. have 
(T<i Sf pii\. Ka'i TavTu and Bekker's N ctt; 6e paX. Km ravra. The most probable explanation of 
this duplicate set of variations is that the original reading was that of 1620. marg., but km 
ravra was omitted, 8 being inserted in its place (so 1620. 67, ABEGM); rai ravra was, how- 
ever, supplied in the margin, from which the words were restored to the text in the wrong 
place (as in N), resulting in the subsequent emendation of ravra to ravry (cfG add.). If the 
reading of the later MSS. (G is 13th cent. ; cf are later than CF), which editors have hitherto 
adopted, be supposed to be original, it is almost inexplicable that neither the scribe nor the 
corrector of 1620 knew of the reading Ka\ ravrjj in 1. 76, and that the corrector should make 
matters worse instead of better. The source of the marginal variants in 1620 is probably 
older than the main text, and may well have been a Ptolemaic papyrus or at any rate as old 
as the archetype of 1620. In view of the great antiquity of the reading rai ravra and the 
very late character of the evidence for Ka\ ravra we much prefer to explain the variations in 
the light of their chronological arrangement, and to regard the readings of (a) 1620. 67 and 
the older I\ISS. and (6) N as intermediate steps in the process by which the reading 
preserved in 1620. marg. became corrupted into that of cfG add. 

71. ?;X6e : so MSS. ; ijXfief edd. The earlier papyri of Thucydides as a rule omit 
V f'^eXxvoTucof at the end of a sentence ; cf. e.g. 1622. 81, 84. 

72. 7rnXn[iloTaTi; : SO some of the deteriores ; the earlier MSB. have naXandri] here, as 
has the marginal note, but in e. g. ch. i. i Tra\ni6r(pa occurs. 

73~4- ^W] vl^ii i'^f^i-'' ^ Knpiv6io>h' y'\ii\f]rlai] : uiu 'Ifrpeu ytycfrdt Kop. MSS, (G at first in- 
serted yiyverai before wi/ 'iapev, but erased it). i(r is fairly certain, and the preceding letter can 
be 7), p, or V, while the letter after ia[p]et>, if not tj, must be v : the traces of fv and of a letter 
after (-{v] are very slight and indecisive. [i]T/:j[f]r Knp. might be read, but before it av [i/jnif 
is not long enough and oiv ['i]p(is is inadmissible. i][&]q is not ver)' satisfactory, but prefer- 
able to a)[i'] cryivialpjfv. The insertion of the article before Kopivdiai[i' may be right 
(cf. 11. I, ,58, 61, nn.) ; the loss of it may be due to the hiatus created when yiyverai 
was placed before instead of after 17 Kopiv6iu>v. That 1620 had the form y]ii'[«]r[ai] (with cf) 
is uncertain, for y].yi'[f]r[ai] can be read. 

75-6. ^[XijcTTQ : pd\. Ka\ ravrrj cfG add., edd. ; cf. 11. 67-8, n. 

76—7. 8[iaKoJ(7i[a (]^r)|^l(]o^Ta : f^rjK. rai 8m<. I\ISS. The traces suit 8uaKo](ri[a very well, 

but in 1. 77 p](\[pi. is quite uncertain. 

109. To what the critical sign refers is uncertain. The only variants in the MSS. at 
this point concern the spelling 'fTjveiav or 'Prji'iai' (in other authors spelled 'Pljvaiav or 
'?r)vaiav), except for the dittography 'Priveiav di/fXwv in cf. 

1 1 2. The critical sign perhaps refers to a variant concerning the spelling of Mao-o-aXiaf 

(MccrtraXiav, MaaaXiaf, Macro-iXiai', or Macro-aXiac MSS.). 




1621. TiiUCVDlDES ii (Speeches). 

14-3 X 1 1-4 cm. Fourth century. Plate V 


This leaf of a vellum codex is of a somewhat novel character, since it 
belongs to a collection of the speeches in Thucydides. The fragment contains 
the conclusion of the speech of Archidamus at the beginning of the war (ii. 11) 
and the beginning of the funeral oration of Pericles (ii. 35). There are 21 lines 
on a page and 20-5 letters in a line. Traces of the pagination are visible 
on both sides, but the figures are illegible. The hand is a calligraphic uncial of 
the same type as the Code.x Sinaiticus, and the fragment has a special palaeo- 
graphical interest, for some omissions by the first hand (11. 18 and 26) have been 
supplied in darker brown ink by a cursive hand. These cursive additions 
are not later than the fourth century, and the main text is likely to belong to the 
early or middle part of that century. Stops occur in the high, middle, and low 
positions, but are partly due to the corrector. A stroke for punctuation (1. 2) and 
occasional diaereses and elision-marks are due to the original scribe, a breathing 
to the corrector. Iota adscript was generally written : where omitted, it has been 
supplied in at least one place (1. 16) and perhaps two others (11. lo and 1,5), 
apparently by the corrector. 

The text as corrected is on the whole a good one and has several interesting 
novelties, which are in most cases superior to the readings of the MSS. The 
omission of the unsatisfactory ouroj in 1. 4 confirms a conjecture of Madvig, 
though confidence in the omissions in 1621 is somewhat shaken not only by the 
two mistaken omissions of the first hand, which are supplied by the corrector, but 
by a third (1. 36), which has escaped his notice, vixlv for ^■|\xlL.■ in 1. 25 confirms the 
conjecture of Hude already substantiated by 853. vii. 15, the confusion between 
these words being of course common. a/^iIracrOai for a/xuVecr^at in 1. 4 and the 
omission of rm' before aWuiv in 1. 19 may well be right. C is supported against 
B five times, B against C twice ; cf 1620. int. 



yoTa-cL a.[v i'uv- npos re to ( 11. 5 
7n^itp(ia[0^ai aa(paXeaTaTOi^ 
[ri]fi(ii Se ovS ent aSwarov 6 

[a.]'a(76ai Trc[X]iy ep)(^o/xe6a 
[aX\]a Tois iraaiv apiara TrapeaK\iv 
'\a(Tfi(VT)V ctare ^prj kul navv 


avTCou opav coy \ov\v em Toa'av[ 
Ti]v TToXiv arpanvovTi^ kui 

piy icrT'\rf\i' So^a:^v\ oiaofi(i'o[i 
25 T019 re npoyoi'oi? Kai vpii' a\y 

€K Twv aTroPai[vovTa)V 

Tois fTT a/x(j)OTepa etreade [0 



[eXVi^eir Sia f^a^i]^ I'tfai avjo'v? 
[fO fiTj Kai vvv copfirjvrai ei- tu^i ? 
01/770) irapfcrfjifv- aW orav tv 

10 Tr;* y-qi opmcTLv r]fias 8rfovvTq\i 
Ti Kai -a (Kdi'cof ^6(t(iovTa\y 
Traai yap tv tou opfiacri. Kai (i/ t[co 7 
napavTiKa opav TTaayovras 
Ti ajjdes opyr] npoaTn7TTi[i 

15 Kai 01 \oyt(7/zffii (\a\iara. \XP\'9 
pivoi 6vpQ>i nXdaTa e? f[p]70 
KadicnavTai- A6r]vaiovs Si 8 


Kai nXiiov Twv aWatv eiKo? 
rovTO Spaaai- 01 ap\(^eii' re aXAaj 
20 [a^^iovcTi- Kai (TTiov-fs TT]i/ rco 
TeAay Srjovf /xaWov rj rmv 

TTTj ay Tiy rjyrjTai- KO<Tp([v 
Kai (pvXaKTJV TTfpi TTavTO'i v\oL 

ovpivci Kai Ta iTap^ay^yi\X\o 
30 piva o^ims Se^opiy[o]r Ka\ 

[\]t(TToy yap ToS( Kai a<T<f)a\i<TT\a 


Xpco/zeroiiy <paive(r6ai- 

35 o[i p''€V TToWoi Tdiv {ep)BaSe rjSrj 35. i 
iiprjKOT(ov (iraii'ovai tov 
TrpocrOiVTa t(oi vopmi rov Xo 
you TovSi coy KaXov em Tcty [ 
iK Twv noXepcou 6an-opt[ 

40 foty ayopevfcrdai avTov ep\oi 
S' apKovv av (SoKei eivai av\_ 

4. la^iivvaaBai.: aiiiveadai ovra MSS., StUart Jones ; dfiivicr6ai omitting oira Hude, 

following ^ladvig. For other variations between nfivvfcrSm and d^irao-ftu cf. e. g. i. 96. i. 
II. Ta (Kfti'uiv : so C ; TO 'ksIvidv a ; TaKeivo>v BEFM, edd, 

12-13. Jtoi fv . . . opal/ is deleled by Hude, who alters naaxovras to T^aa-^ova-i. 

14. TI : Tf C. 

15. Usener wished to delete 01. 

18. Ti, supplied by the corrector, is in all the MSS. 

19. oXXm>»: TOV SXKav 3ISS.; hut Twv nWaiv has just occurred in 1. 18 and nXXavis quite 

21. Tuv. T171/ MSS., rightly. It is certain that rav was first written, but ihe second 
half of the u is incompletely preserved, and ta may have been corrected to »;. 

22. avTav : avTwv C, Hude, Stuart Jones; caiTojf ABEFM''. avTdv was probably 
meant by the papyrus and is likely to be right. 

22-3. Toa-av\Tr;v : SO CEG marg. B yp. F' yp. M*f ex corr., edd. ; nji/ fiXXri- ABFINP; 
Toiavrriv some late ^ISS. 

24. vttTo^fVot : niopevot B. 

25. viiiv: so 853: 17^1" MSS. Cf. int. 

35. c[t fi]ei' : so ABEFM with Tiberius, Syrianus, Dionysius, Castor, and !Max. Plan. 
Hude (but not Stuart Jones) formerly carried his preference for CG to the length of reading 
/lev ouv, but now (ed. maior^) brackets o^v. 

33_6. tjSt) eipijKoruv : SO CG {^Stj add. G'), schol., Syrianus, Max. Plan., edd. ; eipijraVav 
^817 ABEFM ; om. ^^77 Tiberius, Castor. The MSS. of Dionysius vary between rfSq dp. and 

eip. ^^Tj. 

39. TToXf/iOJV : TToXfttlV ABF. 

40. Dobree wished to omit ouror. 

41. 6 ; df CG, edd. apicow av : av dpKoiv ^I. 

O 2 



1622. ThuCYDIDES ii. 

17-5 X 21-2 cm. Early second century. Plate IV. 

The chief interest of this much damaged fragment, which consists of 
the lower halves of two columns and a bit of the column preceding, and contains 
parts of chs. 65 and 67 of Thuc. ii, is palaeographical, for on the verso is part of 
a contract for loan dated in Mecheir of the nth year of Antoninus Pius 
(a. D. 148), so that the recto must have been written before 148, probably in. the 
reign of Hadrian, and is an unusually well dated specimen of second-century 
uncial writing. Other papyri which more or less approximate to it in style and 
date are 9 (Part i, Plate iii, which was there dated somewhat too late), 841 
(Part V, Plate iii), 1233 (Part x, Plate iii), and 1619 (Plate iv). A > -shaped sign 
is used for filling up short lines, and pauses arc indicated by occasional blank 
places, paragraph!, and stops chiefly in the middle position (the high stop 
at the end of 1. 51 is not certain). A mark of quantity occurs in 1. ^^, and 
a correction of spelling, possibly in a different hand, in 1. 81. The column con- 
tained 29-30 lines of 16-22 letters. Iota adscript was written. 1622 agrees with 
C twice and with the other family twice ; cf. 1620. int. The only new reading 
occurs in the very compressed sentence beginning in 1. 84, of which the en4.. is not 
preserved. Here the text of 1622 is apparently corrupt as it stands, but is 
perhaps nearer the original than the reading of the MSS., which may be only an 
emendation ; cf. n. ad loc. 

Col. i. 
17 lines lost and traces of 7 lines [Sicoy] 7re[p](ye_;'€o-^ai ?"['?''] 

25 [o-oi'TOf TO)! ITept/cXja erre 6.^. 13 \ttqK\lv JT[eX]o7roi'i'j;a([ 

\pi<j<ytv(jt roTi] a(p wv avTOf 30 [coj/ avrm'] rwt woXfficoi 

[TTpoe]y[i']a) [K]a.c [najuv av pat 

Col. ii. 
16 lines lost 
[K]ai To[v] a[vTov depov]? T[e\iv 67.1 

TCOVTOS ApL(JT[(v]i KopCf 

6ios Kai AaKeS[a]tfio[i']ia)i' 
50 Trpecr/Seiy Afijptaro? Kat Ni 
KoXao? Kai IIpaToSafioi- 
Kai Teyeart]? Tifiayopa? 
Kai Apynoi iSidL Tlo\[K\n 

Col. iii. 
16 lines lost 
lj\oi'6\i n[apa Tcai ScraXKrji 67. 2 
■!re[i]6ovcn tov SaSoKov 
Toi' y€yii'7j[fi]€i'oif AOirj 

avSpas ey^ipicrai acpto'i- [0 
TTCoy fiij SialSavTa coy /Sja 

1622. THUCYDIDES 11 197 

7ropeio/i€j'o[t esl Tr\v Aai aiXea Tr]u iKiLvov noXcu [ 

55 ay coy ^acnXea [ei Tr^coy Trei to fiepos ^\a\^a>ai Se > 

aaav avTOV )^[p]r]/xaTa re 85 iTua[d]fi9 nopiVOfxeuov[? 

7ra/0€X«M.'' ftt' i[^]f^7?^^ avTovs Sia ttjs QpatK7]s e 

[/ijeir- a0iKi'oi'»{T]ai [wr] Xt ni to nXotov e/zeAXe > 

[7-]aAK?;r irpwTov [t^oW Tjji tov [EX\\rjaTTOVTOv 7re[ 

60 [p\(a) (? QpaiKT)\y fiov]Xojx€ [p]aLQj[a-(U'] irpiv i[(T]^aiviLv [ 
Fr. 2. ] . .[ 

28-9. T[r)i' I TToXjii- : so CG, Aristides, edd. ; tmi/ ABEFM. 

51. YlparoiaiiOi : SO M, edd. ; nparo8r;/ios CEFG ; STpaTtiSijfiof AB. 

57. rrnpfx^'i" (-^^ corr. EFM) suits the vestiges much better than Trapaaxfli]" (COB' ?, 

79. Toi/ : om. CG. 

80. viov : v'lmv A ; v6v Hude. 

81. atrial : for the omission of v ((PeXxva-TiKou cf. 1. 84 and 1620. 71, n. 

84 sqq. For c^itXXe in 1. 87 the MSS. have u ffiiWov, making Trfpaiiio-fn' intransitive 
contrary to the customary usage of the passive in this sense, as was noticed by Thomas 
Magister (early fourteenth century). f/ieXXe may be merely a blunder due to some one who 
wished to make wtpniio-fir transitive and ignored luXXap/Sofct, which follows ia^aivav (1. 89) 
in the MSS. and governs Tropfuo/ifVovs ahroii. The loss of the end of the sentence in 1622 
is unfortunate, for the construction was not quite clear. After |i/XXa/xi3<a'fi the AISS. 
continue SXXovs 8e (so CG ; S17 Hude ; om. ABEFM, Stuart Jones) ^vpTrep^ai jxeTu tov 
Xtapxov Toil ' Xtidvidhov xai eKikivdiv fKfivon napaSoiivai. fptXXf cannot be defended as long as 
the subject of it is Sitalces, who, as the context shows, had no intention of allowing the 
Spartan envoys to cross the Hellespont ; but with the correction (o) tptWe (sc. the ship) the 
difficulty arising from the intransitive use of irfpaiairetv would be removed, since a second 
accusative for that verb could easily be understood from Tropsi'o/xfVovr airois : cf. Polyb. iii. 

113. 6 Touff XotTTOif c^ayayoiif . . . Kn\ TTfpniwaas Knrti dirrovs tottovs to pfidpov, co epfXXof would 

on this theory represent an attempt to emend the te.xt as found in 1622. 

Fr. 2. This fragment was adhering to the top left-hand corner of the papyrus, 
but apparently by accident. If it really belongs to 11. iy-21, it may refer to 7rpoo-y€]i'o/j[enDi 

or nfXol7roj'[i'^fT(o(S'. 

1623. TlIUCYDIDES iii. 

14-7 X5-5 cm. Fifth or si.\th century. 

This fragment of a leaf of a vellum codex contains part of Thuc. iii. 7-9, 
with fairly numerous stops (in all three positions), paragraphi, accents, breathings, 
and diaereses. The only correction preserved, the insertion of a v (fpiAKvariKov in 
1. 45, is due to the original scribe, who wrote a good-sized upright oval uncial 
hand of the fifth or sixth century. Iota adscript is omitted once and written 
once. Traces of ruling are discernible on the recto, which is the hair side. The 
text in spite of its comparatively late date stands somewhat apart from the 



mediaeval MSS., agreeing once with CGM, probably twice with the B group 
(cf. 1620. int.), and presenting several new readings. Of these the omission of 
tS>v viSiv in 1. 1 and to -ne^ov for tov -n. in 1. 1 1 arc quite defensible. More interest- 
ing is the variant avi[T!kevae for f-nKevae in 1. 8, where the simple verb was rather 
ambiguous. The precise nature of the variation in 11. 19-20 is obscured by 
lacunae. 1616 was found with 1623. 

[nXeiovi a\TroTrefnrei na\i~ 7. 3 
fen- oiKov] 6 AcrcoiTtos- avroi 4 
S €^0)1' 8](oS(Ka acpiKud 
rai e? Nav]rTaKTOi>- Kat vcrTe 
pov AKap^fdvas avacrTi] 
cay Trai'Sii]fi(i. cxTpaTivei 
(n Oii'iaSas] Kai raiy re uav 
ai Kara ? Tor A^]€Xa)Ov ave 
nXevcre kul 0] Kara yqv arpa 
TO's eSrjiov Trj^f -^copaf 
coy S ov Trpoaf)(]a>povi'. to pk 5 
iT(.(ov a<pLriaii'] avroi Si 
wXivaas ey A(VK]aSa kui aw6 
^aaw es NrjpLKoy iroL-qca 
(j.ivo'S ai'a-)(a>poo\v Sia<p6ii 
perai auroy re Ka]i ttji arrpa 
nay ti pepoi vtto rla)^' avTO 
del' Ti ^vp^or]6ricr\'ivT(jiv 

Kai (PpOVpCOV Tll'COl' ?] (Of VCTTipb 6 

VTToanoySovi roi/y] viKpovs 
anonXivaavTi's 01] AOrjuai 
01 irapa t(m> AiVKa\8i(x>v 
10 lines lost 


Bivnpov ii'LKa 'yKai nrn 
Srj piTa T'qv i\opTr)v Ka 

35 TiaTTjaai' ey Xo[yov^ unov 
ToidSi- TO piv [/ca^etrroy 
Tory *EXXr}cri vo[pipov a> av 
SpiS AaKi8ai[povioi Kai 
^vppa^oi 'i[(TpiV TOVS 

40 yap a(piaTa[fj.ii'OV? iv Toi^ 
TToXipoti K[aL ^vppa)(Lai' 

TTjU npiV [aiToXiLITOVTaS 

01 Si^apiluoL Ka6 oaoi' pn' 
<i>(piXovi'[Tai if riSovrji 

45 f^OVail- l'o[pt^01'TiS 8 il 

vai 7r/3o5[o7ay tcjov npo tov 
(fiiXcoi' )([iipovs rjyovi'Tat 
Kai ovK a[8iK0i avTr] ?; a^i 
cocrty €crr[a' n TV^oiev npos 
50 aXXr]X[ovi OL Ti a<pi(TTa 
pivoi K[ai acp cov SiaKpi 


prp oi^rty Kai ivi'Oia 
ai'Ti[TraXoi 8i Trp irapa 
10 lines lost 

I. Ti\(io\is a^TTOTKjntti : ttX. ancmcfiTiii twv vdov MSS. Since al vrjfs Occurred in the 
previous sentence, the repelition is unnecessar}'. 

8-9. a>'(|[7rXfi'(Te : ?7rXfD(rf MSS. uvanXfiv occurs only once in Thuc. i. 104. 2 Ka\ 
amTrXfCtraura aTTu 6u\na(n]i f's tov NuXov, where it implies Sailing up stream. If this was also 
implied here, >'qi'][o-i:' <s toi/ A;(]fXmoi' av. may have been the reading ; but avelrr'Kfvae may simply 


mean 'sailed out \ in which case it hardly dilTers from the simple verb and rard means 'in 
the direction of or ' off' orperliaps even • on '. Oeniadae was situated near the mouth of 
the Acheloiis, surrounded in winter by marshes into which the Achelous flowed (Thuc. ii. 
102. 2), and of which one connected with the Gulf of Corinth according to Strabo, 
p. 459. The ships may therefore have been taken a little way up the river. A compound 
verb has this advantage over the simple one that it is not open to the interpretation ' he 
sailed down the Acheloiis', which is inadmissible here; cf. iv. 25. 8 rms fiiv uavcri neptn'Kfi- 
(TavTfs Kara Tor ^AKfclvqv (in Sicily) txotu^ov ttjv yrjv (djjovf. That dreVAfvyf here means 
' sailed back ' (Asopius had already passed Acarnania on his way up the gulf to Naupactus) 
is less likely. 

II. to: Toy i\ISS. Thucydides uses both the masculine and neuter of Trffis substan- 

18-19. a«""o|[^f'' (ABEFM, edd.) suits the length of the lacuna better than avT6\[di (CG). 
The supposed accent is very doubtful. 

19—20. TLftotf?] wf VijTfpov ^runoa-jTovbnvs : riuwu 6\iymu Ka\ v<TT€pot' vn. IVISS, There 

is certainly not room for both tivw and o\iy<jiv and there is no trace of kqi, but av instead of 
being iiv might be the termination of Tiv^aiv or o\iy'\aiv with 8 before un-oorroi'Soi/s in 1. 20, 
though the supplement there is quite long enough, v and cp of vtrrfpov are fairly certain ; 
the <7T is cramped and seems to have been corrected, ])robably from tt, and 5 is not a very • 
satisfactory reading. l}v is not in accordance with Thucydidean usage in this context, ku'l 

varepov inoairovSovs being COmmon. 

37-8. ai.]|5pft : so ABEFM ; om. CG, edd. 
41. n(i\(poii : so CGM, edd. ; TroXf^iois ABEF. 

1624. Plato, Protagoras. 

Fr. I 10-5 X 17 cm. Third century. Plate VI 

(Cols. l.\iii-iv, l.xvi). 

These scanty remains of a roll containing tlie Protagoras originally consisted 
of about 100 pieces, of which nearly three-quarters have been placed and some 
very minute scraps ignored. The identified fragments, which amount to about 
230 lines in all, are scattered over the latter part of the dialogue from pp. 337- 
57, representing 23 out of the last 71 columns, but none at all completely. 
The upper margin is partly preserved in Cols, ii, xx, xxxv, xxxvii, xlv, Ixi, 
Ixiii-v, the lower in Cols, i, xvi, and Ixiii, showing that each column contained 
37 or 38 narrow lines of 10-17 letters, usually 12 or 13. The writing is a hand- 
some specimen of the now well-known third-century type of uncials approximating 
to that of the early biblical codices ; cf. 1365. int. Like 1017 (Pkacdnis), 1624 
is remarkable for the presence of many corrections or alternative readings, which 
have been inserted in a different and cursive hand. These seem to have been 
written somewhat later in the third century than the scholia in 1241, but to be 
contemporary with the scholia in P. Grenf ii. 12, the main text in those two 
papyri being in hands very similar to the first hand of 1624. which is 
probably not later than the middle of the centurj'. Iota adscript was written, 


so far as can be judged. Paragraph! were employed by the first hand, but in 
the four places in which they occur have been placed in brackets by the corrector. 
Stops in all three positions occur, besides double dots marking a change of 
speaker, but in many cases are due to the corrector, who was apparently responsible 
for a breathing in 1. 169 and accent in 1. 2^5. Wedge-shaped signs for filling 
up short lines, occasional diaereses over i and v, and probably the accent in 1. 16 
and elision-mark in 1. 227 are due to the first hand. The corrector's omissions, 
apart from the bracketing of paragraph! mentioned above, are indicated in 
11. 114, 272, 589 by a stroke, elsewhere by dots, above the letters in question. 

Papyri of Plato are now fairly numerous, 1624 being the 19th known ; but 
no fragments of the Protagoras have been discovered previously. P"or this 
dialogue the chief MSS. are B (the Clarkeanus), T (the Marcianus), and W 
(Vindobonensis 54) ; but 1624 happens to cover very few passages in which they 
differ seriously. A mistake of BT is avoided (1. 360), but in 11. 629 and 663 the 
papyrus apparently supports BT against VV. In 11. 319 and 43,5 the first hand 
agrees with the reading of W, the corrector with that of BT (in 1. 435 not 
exactly). Some agreements between 1624 and Vaticanus 1029 are noticeable 
(11. 435, 592, 632, nn.) and the text of Stobaeus is supported in 1. 396, so that 
with regard to the existing tradition there is no reason to suppose that 1624 was 
less eclectic than the longer Plato papyri from Oxyrhynchus, 843 and 1016-17. 
In the new readings, which are frequent, the first hand and the corrector usually 
took different views, the only instance in which they agreed upon a hitherto 
unrecorded variant being the insertion of the article before y-ipn in 1. 288. In 
11. 6, 594, 632, and 637 the corrector has restored the ordinary reading of the 
MSS. by inserting words omitted either intentionally or by inadvertence by 
the first hand ; cf. also 11. 176-7, n. The first hand was not a very accurate 
scribe, to judge by several apparent repetitions of syllables ; cf. 1. 114, n., and 
843 {Syviposiuni), which has numerous mistakes of this character. The most 
striking of the new readings rejected by the corrector is the addition of ai before 
"laai in 1. 589, a reading which had been generally adopted by modern editors 
from a conjecture of Heindorf, but is hardly rendered more convincing. More 
often it is the first hand, not the corrector, who agrees with the MSS. ; cf 11. 15, 
431, 481, 486,490, 590, 592, 640, 665, 666, 672, nn. In several of these places 
there is an obvious difficulty in the ordinary reading, and in 1. 672 the corrector's 
reading had already suggested itself to some of the Renaissance editors of 
Plato as an improvement, while in 11. 15 and 640 his readings seem to be 
superior ; but the changes proposed in 11. 592 and 666 are of more doubtful 
value. The other novelties are all of the nature of omissions from the ordinary 
text, in revising which the corrector, presumably on the authority of a different 



MS., exhibits an unwonted and perhaps exaggerated tendency to solve difficulties 
by excisions. His text is, however, as a whole distinctly better than that of the 
first hand, and interesting as a specimen of a recension which was probably due 
to some Alexandrian grammarian, and possibly connected with the corrector's 
text in 1017. A proneness to omissions of words found in the traditional text is one 
of the characteristics of the Phaedo and Ladies papyri of the third century B.C., 
but these of course differ from the ordinary text much more widely than 1624. 

Col. i (Frs. I. i, 2). 
\lii\v T] [^vv]ov[a]ia 337 b 

■yiyi>oi.T[o]. y/J€[ily re 
[y]ap 01 XtyovTi^ /xa 
Xia-T Of oiTcoy iv rj 


[criV evSoKtfXOlTC Kai 

[ovk] enaLVOKrOi- (v 

SoKifiiii' 76 yap i(T 

TL Tvapa TaLS ■^v 

10 \aLS TCxjv [aK\ovov 

TU)V av[iv\ ana 

T[r}^ tTTai\viicr6ai 

\8i\ iv Xoycoi noXXa 

[(Ci]y napa So^av 


15 [■^f]v8oftiva>i'- 77 337 c 

[/ifjjy T av 01 uKov 

[ovTi]9 fJ.a\iaT a[v 

[ovTcos iv](ppa[ivoi 

16 lines lost 
35 [St] t[oi' UpoSlKOV 

Imi[Lai ao(pos (l 

Ttiv [q) avSpes € 

Col. ii (Frs. 1. ii, 3-4). 
(pi] [ot napovTiS rj 
yo[v/xai eyo) vfias 

40 av[yy(i'fis re Kai 

oik[(iovs Kai ttoXl 

[ray a;ra»']Tay tivaL 

[(pvcii o\v vofiwi- 337 d 

\to yap~\ ofiowv Twi 
45 o[/jioiQ)]i (pva-ei ^vy 

yev[is] iarii' o Si 

i'op[os] Tvpavi'os 

coy Tcnv ai'Bpw 

TTai[v] T7oXXa ira 
.50 pa T7;[i'] (pvaty ISia 

^€T[ai ^]f^a? ovi' 

aicr)([poj'] TTji' fiiv 

(pv\cnv T\pciv Trpa 

y[lxaT(m' €i^5e[i'lar 

12 lines lost 
67 Tov] t[o]v a^[ia>ixa 

T0%\ a^toy a[Tro(pr] 

]y[aa-]6ai- aXX [coainp 337 e 

70 ]roi'[y] (pavXo[raTovs 

]TQiv ayOpco^rrtov 

Sia](pepea6a[i aX 

Xr]Xo]i.i- t[y(o fiiv 

2 lines lost 



10 lines lost 
86 t\o Kara I3pa)(^v \l 
av [ei jxr] riSv np(0 
Tay[opai aXX ((pit. 
»'[a]i K[ai ^aXacrat 

Col. ix (Fr. 5). 
[[uo-[re/)o^]] ovK opOtos 339 d 

115 Aey[€i itTTOjy ow 
[r]ai'[Ta noXXois 

Col. xvii (Fr. 7). 

12 lines lost 
167 i-[v Kui 01 aWoi eym 342 a 

Tn[irvi' rjv eyco 

a y ip\oi SoKfi nepL 

170 Tov a[La/ia]TOi [rov 

Tov netp[a]<Top[ai 

(piX[ocr]o<pia ya[p ecr 

Ti^ naXaiOTaTlt] 
175 re KUL nXetarri [roov 

EXXt]1'coi' [[fa[']] f 

Kprj[T]r]i Kai ef [Aa 342 b 

KeSa[i]noi'r Ka[i cro 

(piarai TrXnaT^oi 
180 yr]s iKii eicrii'- a[XXa 

i^apvovvrai Ka\i 


ajxaQui [ei]i'ar i[ 

va fir] K[aTaSr] 
185 Xoi coaiu [OTI (TO 

About 7 lines lost 

Col. iii (Fr. i. iii). 

90 ra^ r][i'tai roiy Xo 
338 a yoiy [lua fieyaXo 

np([rrecTTepoi kul 

About 20 lines lost 

Col. xvi (Fr. 6). 
About 36 lines lost 
153 new ([l (3ovXei Xa 341 e 

^tty fi[ov TTiipav 

Col. xix (Fr. 8). 

About 30 lines lost 
223 [Ti(r77/? a)tr]re [0a£ 

\yea-Bai t]oi' Tr[poa\8i\a 
225 \Xeyo\iJiivov iraL 
[5oy ii\riSii' /SeXret 
[o) TOi/jr' oi'[i'] avTO 
^Kai Tcoi' I'vi'] deny 
[01 KaTaviv6\riKa 
230 lai Kat TCoi' Tr]aX[ai 

Col. XX (Frs. 9-10). 
231 [ti to XaK\a>i>L(i\j.v 
[TToXf pia\XX[ov ear 
[ti (piXoao](p([ii' t] 
235 [eiiSorey o]7i t[ol 

About 33 lines lost 

342 6 

342 6 



Col. xxiii (Fr. 11). 

269 t[ovto ye c^ardT] 343 c 

270 «»' [Kat 0:' ^ifiu) 

^i^ov I ]] 

'^To[. . .]] aXK virep 
^a[roi' S(i Giivai 
[f]»' T[a)t aia/xaTi 

Col. XXXV (Fr. 13). 
280 [o]i^Te \//-aXT/3[i]ay a\\[a 347 d 
[aji'ToiT eaiTOts I 
Kavovs ovTas ^vi\ 

fr.]]i'a( aviv Tail' Xrj 
[p](Bi' re »ca( naiSi- 
285 ajr TOfTcoi' 5ta 

I'ljy Xeyoiray t€ 
x-ai aKovoi'Tai n' Tco[t 
(JLipti eavTcov ko 
290 [ajfiico';- [K]a[f] Travv 
[7roX]i{i' oivo'\v niai 

About 26 lines lost 

Col. xlvi (Frs. iS-19). 
[ano T€^X''V^ y lyve 35 1 a 

395 [rai a]i'6p(eiT0is' Kat 
[ano 6vix6\v ye Kat 

laTTO fiavia\s coo"] 

Col. lix (Fr. 2i). 
About 27 lines lost 
428 Tah[ri\ov ecTTai e 355 b 

av fit] TToWoii 

Col. xxxi (Fr. 12). 
275 [fios] T[coy yap 7;Xi 346 c 

6i<ou [oTTeipDJ' ye 
i'e0X[a cucTT ei ti? 
^aipi[i v^eycoi/ e/i 
n\T]a[6fiT] av e 

Col. xxxvii (Fr. 14). 
318 [iToiiiv 6\vK i6e 348 b 

[Xojj' e£7e 5]a)crei[[»']] [Xo 
320 [yov (iTf] fir] 6[ia 
[<ra(peii' (\fJ-qi [y]a[p 

About 34 lines lost 

Col. xlv (Frs. 15-17)- 
356 yap [d] ovT[a> fiericoi' 350 d 

epoio /xe- ([i layypoi 

[S\vvaroi i[icTL (f>aL 350 e 

[r{\v av[-] e7r[ejTa 
360 [et] 01 iin(TTaii[ivoi 

\n\a\aieiv 8v\i'a 

[ra)r]e/90i e(tn tu)[v 

[prj tTTL(TTap?fv\a)i' 

About 30 lines lost 

Col. Ivii (Fr. 20). 
398 K6\uai[i> e(p>j 354 d 

jJTptBi rayopay aX 

.}00 Xo] T;I OVl' TTaXlV 

Col. Ixi (Fr. 23). 
477 [iii^v. Tail' ayaOoii' 355 d 

[T]a KUKa- 1] a^iaiv: 
(priaopn' SrjXov 



430 «'Ojua[<rt -^peofjieda 

[[«/)«]] rjSe[L T€ Kai a 
viapeai [kul ayaOcot 
Kai Ka[KU>i aXX e 
TTdSr] \Svo ecpai'T] 
Kav [ 

435 TavTa S[voiv oi>o 

[Toj'oTj/iafcri npoaayo 
pi[va>fj.ii' OLVTa 
7r[/3a)]r[oi' p-iu aya 

Col. Ix (Fr. 22). 
5 lines lost 
[pev OTi yiyf^ojcr 
445 [koou o av6pooTT]os 
[ra KUKa on K]a 

About 30 lines lost 

355 c 

480 Ti arroKpLvopivoL 

[[[or]*]] ovK a^tcof Of 
[t(o]v ov yap av e^rj 
[pajpravef ov (pa 
[pey rjTTOi nvai 

485 [Ta)]v rjSovatv. ku 

[ra Tt] Sf (prja-ei [[i'a-ajy]] 
[aval^ia icrri raya 
[6a T(o\v KaKOiv rj 
[ra Ka]Ka rw[v a^ya 

490 [6a>v} [[tj]] Ka[T a\\]o ti 
[rj oTaf] Ta \piv\ pa 
[((0 Ta Se crpiKpoT^e 

About 22 lines lost 

Col. Ixii (Fr. 24). 

About 20 lines lost 
535 foji' K[ai TjSeoi Kai 356 a 

X]i'7r7;p[oi; pcof a 
X]Acoj Tw[i (paiT]y 
a]c eyaiy[e rj rjSo 

About 13 lines lost 

Col. Ixiv (Fr. 25. ii). Plate vi. 
Kai ai (pcoi'ai [[a'Tj i' 35^ c 

590 aai (yyvOef jA'fi']] 


Se a-piKpoTipai^^ <pai 

I— J 
fu av: a ovi' ev tov 356 d 

[fTrovTlra)!] to tv irpaT 

Col. Ixiii (Frs. 25. i, 26). Plate vi. 

552 [Sea ia-Tr]ii\ Ta pel 356 b 

[^Q> aei Kai' nXeico 

[XtjUTea ia]v Se 
555 [XvTTrjpa Trploy XfTTj; 

[pa Ta eXarrlco Kai 

[apiKpoTepa] ea[v 

About 22 lines lost 
.580 [Kpiv^acrde 07)[crco 356 c 

[<paiv]eTai vp[iv 

[rr/i] oy^ii Ta [avT 

[peye6(q iyyv6[iv 

[piv p]et^co. TT[op 
585 [poodev] Se e\aT[TQ> 

[t] ov ^]r]aovat: K[ai 

[Ta na)(\ea Kai r[a 



595 [TilV i]v TCOl Ta yU€I' 

\fieya\]a /xtjkti [ 
[Kai TTpaTynv '[KaL 

About 28 lines lost 

Col. Ixv (Frs. 37,28.1, 29-32). 

626 TTL TO)! a\\]r)6iL Ka[L So^ 6 

gcrcoaef [ar] tov ^i^yOv] 
[apa av oljioXoyoi 
[iv av6p\(inT0L wpos 
630 [Ta'\yTa j/[/^]ay ttjv 
[lJ.{\TprjT[iK]riv aco 


[XTjf T]n[i' fie]Tpi] 
635 [ti] S ei iv T[r/i] 701' Tre 

[p}iTTOV Ka\L ap]TLOV 

aipeaa ij'iP-i]^ tj croo 
TTjpux [tov Pi6\v 
[77076 70 77Xeo«' ojp^cuy 

640 eSe^i eXeo-^ai] Kai o 

■7T0T[e TO iKaT]Tov y] 

aVTO TTpOS f[a\vTO- -q 

T^o e]Tfpoi' Tr[p]os TO 

[erejpoj'" eiT [ejyyi/y 
645 'jiT]e TToppco [ei]r] tl 

About 17 lines lost 

[TToXAa] CdavT\a)^ 

Col. Ixvi (Fr. 28. ii). Plate vi. 
663 [7r]fi5[j; Se r^Sovr)^ 357 a 

re Ka[i Xuttt?? (v op 
665 6r}L [[77/[i]] aipean e^a 


pia TO\v ^tov ova a 
TOV t[€ irXeovo'S Kat 
eXa77[oroy Kat fiei 
670 ^ovos [kui afiLKpo 


Tip<o[i Kai eyyvTf 


pool- ap[a npuiTOv 
fi€y o[v fieTp-qTL 

About 25 lines lost 


Fr. 33- 


] • nh • 

]co ow 

705 ]...«[ 


Fr- 34- 

Fr. 35- 

Fr. 36. 

Fr. 37- 

Fr. 38 

707 'laa-i 

711 jo-ttL 

715 ]•[ 


722 ]\vn[ 




720 ]aii'[ 




]X-[ ]•'?. /r V-[ 

710 ]v 7r[ ]r[ ]?/€ 

Fr. 39. Fr. 40. Fr. 41. Fr. 42. Fr. 43. 

725 ]qv[ 728 ]rr.[ 731 ]v[ ]ra.[ 736 IXj; 

4 ] .• 6[ ]ov[ > lK.7- 

Fr. 44. Fr. 45. Fr. 46. Fr. 47. Fr. 48. 

738 ](T .[ 740 ] . . [ 742 > KaL .[ ]v .[ 746 ] . 4 

]Krj[ ](j6a\ ]•■•[ 745 ]o<^'[ ]/^a • [ 

6. KOI : so MSS. 

7. fTrniTOiirflc : SO B, edd. ; (-naivf'icBe with superscribed ot T. 

8. jiei' : so MSS. ; rf, the reading of the tirst hand, is probably due to a reminiscence 
of 1. 2. It is not quite certain that he wrote [5e] rather than [rf] in I. 13. 

15. [\|'f]uSo/ifi'Mi' : so MSS. except V'^at. 1029 (ylfevhofiivu). The corrector's reading 
■^ev&ofxfvov, which is pasi-ive, not middle, and refers to the subject of the infinitives, brings 
out the antithesis between (lioKiyiuv and inaivtXadai more clearly, and is likely to be right. 

40. a-i\yy(V(it SO BT. Elsewhere (11. 45 and 282) the first hand uses the |-form, 
which the corrector preferred here. 

69-71. The fragment containing '\i{, ]roi[, and ]rw[ is not certainly placed here, and 
the division of lines is doubtful throughout II. 67-73. 

89. )t[ai \aKa<Tai. : these words were bracketed by Cobet. 

114. [[uo[Tfpoj/]] : this word is in the MSS. and can hardly be dispensed with. It may 
well have been omitted here by the corrector because it was wiiiten twice over (cf. 11. 271-2, 
436, 593-4, nn.); but the preceding words are corrupt in BT (ijyoiTo noTfpnv instead of 7T01 
Tu npuTfpov) and inay have been equally corrupt in 1624, in which case the omission 
of varepov is jiossibly part of an extensive alteration. 

169. y f^i[oi: so soine edd. since Bekker ; but y( p[oi (BT, Burnet) can of course be 
read equally well. 

173-4. fo-jri : so T ; ('arw B, like the corrector. 

176-7. |[Ka[i]] fv I K;»i[7-]iji : eV K. -re MSS. The corrector may have added re after ef. 

180. a[\\a makes the line rather long, but the division nXX' | t^apv. would be unusual. 
Cf. I. 280. 

223-4. Fr. 45 might be placed here, [Ti(T]ri)[s and [rf](TA.[i being possible. 

271-2. The MSS. have nothing between St/jcow'Sou and liXX'. Possibly uXX un-fp/Sarov 
was written twice by mistake; cf. 1. 114, n. 

281. faVTOis : avToU BT. Cf 1. 286, n. 

283. The letter before rai is almost entirely lost, but has clearly been crossed through, 
and there seems to be a letter above the line, so that it is not satisfactory to suppose that the 
corrector simply altered the division ivv\fivai, which is legitimate but rather unusual, to 
^vii(i\vai. No variant is known here. 

286. favTav: avToiv B, edd. J avrm' T. Cf. 1. 281, n. 

288-9. ei'T(.[i| lifpet: om. Toit MSS. The article is sometimes inserted, sometimes 


omitted, in this phrase by Plato; cf. Gorg. 462 a ev tm fxipti e'punCiv re kq) f'pwTm^eiot with 

496 b tiW (V li'pd o'/uat (Ki'iTipiiv Kiu Xa/i/3<ir<i Knl I'muWia. 

319. 6]a>o-<i[[i']] : Siio-d BT rightly ; Saiativ W. 

357. taxvpin (B) suits the probable length of the lacuna better than a i,Txvp(n (T, edcl). 

360. [fi] 01 : so t, edd. ; oifi B ; oUi T. 

396. yf : so Stobaeus, Burnet; rt BTW, Schanz. Cf. airo pavlat yi xdi Bvfiov a few 
lines before 1. 394, where Wt Stobaeus have y(, and BT rt. 

397. [airo /xaMa]f : the r is fairly certain, and the length of the lacuna does not suit the 
restoration [pavias w]ff[rf, omitting ano in accordance with Naber's conjecture. 

398-400. The division of lines in this fragment is quite uncertain. 
431. [[apa]]: npa BTW ; o/ja a corrector of the Coislinianus, Burnet. The difficulty 
is caused by the late position of apa in the sentence. 

435. {[voiv : so \V, Vat. 1029 ; BT agree with the corrector in adding k«i, but place it 
after instead of before tvoiv. BT's order seems preferable. 

436. ^ovo^p.n[cn : probably ovo had been written twice by the first hand; cf. 1. 114, n. 
436-7. ■Kpo(Tayo\\pi\ytx>p.ev : SO edd. ; TTpoo-oyoptiJo^fi' BTW. Line 437 is already rather 

short (ii letters), and the substitution of o for a, though possible, is not satisfactory. 
pi\ avTu ■npa,\![ov\ p\(v is inadmissible, for, though t could be read instead of tt, ihe only 
alternatives to the t of 7r[pQ)]r[oi/ are y and it. 

444-6. The position assigned to this fragment is far from certain. 

481. [[[ot]i]]: the corrector omitted this word, which is in the MSS., presumably 
because (hrjXov) on had occurred in 11. 479-80; cf. int. 

486. po-o-s] : this word is in the MSS., but can be dispensed with. 

490. ([i;J : the omission of this word is distinctly an improvement, if fj (so MSS. and 
edd.) was meant. This question simply supplies the answer to the preceding one Kara W 8e 
ktX., and does not introduce a fresh alternative of any kind. If 7 is retained, 7 seems 
preferable to rj. 

535-8. The division of lines in this fragment is uncertain. 

582. [t^iI : so MSS.; there would be room for two more letters in the lacuna. 

588. aa-am[as : the o- above the line does not seem to be due to the ordinary corrector, 
but it is not quite certainly by the first hand. 

589. [[at]]: al is not in the MSS., but Heindorfs insertion of it has been accepted by 
practically all editors. The absence of ni can however be defended by supplying ova-m with 
itrai (cf. Ast's note), and it is not at all clear that the first hand was right, even though there 
is a doubt about the deletion, ai has had dots placed above it, but through these is a 
horizontal stroke, such as is used in 11. 114 and 272 to indicate the deletion of the letters 
below. Seeing that in 1. 592 the corrector has eliminated double dots marking a change of 
speaker not by running his pen continuously through them, but by crossing them out 
separately, we prefer to suppose that the corrector in I. 589 substituted one mode of e.xpress- 
ing deletion for another (possibly for the sake of clearness, owing to the presence of 
a diaeresis by the first hand over the following 4 of t|o-ai), rather than that he changed 
his mind about the omission of at and meant to cross out the dots indicating deletion and let 
ai stand, or that this was the meaning of a possible second corrector. The bracketing of 
the paragraph! below 11. 51, 167, 592, and 593 may have been due to a desire on the part of 
the corrector to avoid confusion between paragraph! and horizontal strokes indicating 

590. [[m*"]] : nothing seems to be gained by the omission of this word, which is in the 
MSS., but is not esseniial. Since the following word began pu, the intrusion or omission 
of tifv would be eas}-. 

592. apiKporepai: SO I\ISS. except Vat. 1029, which has eXuTTovs Ka\ apmp., a conflation 


of the alternative readings found here. The corrector's reading i\aTTovi is in accordance 

with> . . . eXdrTQi in 11. 584-5. 

593-4. The MSS. have il olv eV toOtm rifi'iv rjv to ktX., except Venetus 184, which places 
uvv after roiVo). tjixiv can be dispensed with, but hardly ^f. todI^twi rjv^ may have been the 
reading of the first hand, but this restoration, even if rjv had dots placed above it by the cor- 
rector, fails to account satisfactorily for the position of the insertion iijieiv -qv, and Toi/[Ta)i ye] 
is less probable than a mistaken repetition of the syllable tou : cf 11. 1 14, 436, nn., and for 
the omission of ^^ after tjixIv 1. 637, n. 

596-7. The lacuna after unKi is not very adequately filled by a wedge-shaped sign. If 
ixrjKr] [kcii | be read, in the absence of any known variant for fir]Kr] ku! irpdrrew the simplest 
course would be to suppose a mistaken repetition of kih : cf. the preceding n. 

627—8. /3i[ov| apa av o]^oXoyoi : or possibly /Siifoj/ ap av o\p.. 

629. ai/flpjan-oi : SO BT [iii/d^; ol av6p. W, Vat. 1029, Burnet, avdpanroi may have been 
meant if the first hand omitted 01, which, though probable, is not quite certain. The a 
of nr^pjaTToi apparently projected slightly to the left of the fi of ojuoAoyoi in 1. 628 and a of 
r]pi\as in 1. 630. 

632. av : so BT ; om. Vat. 1029 like the first hand, nv is necessary in view of ea-atriv 
av (1. 627) and fo-mffj' liv (lost in 1. 646). 

637. -qv : so BT. ^i- is indispensable; cf. 11. 593-4, n. 

640. KM : so BT. The corrector's reading .,,, i. e. 7, seems to suit the argument 

662-3. f:7r]fiS[;; fie : SO BT ; eVi 8e 8;} W, Vat. 1209 ; eVet 8e 817 Bumet, following Adam. 
The vestige before iS suits e better than jr. 

665. 1[t7;[i]] : rfi Bt ; Tvfi T. Vat. 1029 omits fv in I. 664, and possibly the first hand or 
the corrector difi'ered there from the ordinary reading fv op6r}i (e. g. by having riji opBqi or ev tjji 
op6r]i). The mere omission of rrji in 1. 665 is however more probable. The article can easily 
be dispensed with. 

666. 'j[iiw. so MSS. The corrector's reading 1^11' gains some support from the 
proximity of euv, S> Si'Bpairoi (1. 662), which introduces the summing-up of the argument, and 
the constant use of the second person plural throughout the dialogue with imaginary objectors 
in pp. 353 sqq. wf'is, however, not ipiU, is used in the previous steps of the argument (e. g. 
in 11. 594, 637), and the theory that good and evil ultimately meant pleasure and pain is not 
the starting-point of the opponents of Socrates in this part of the Protagoras, but on the 
contrary is forced upon them by him, so that there was no need for Socrates to dissociate 
himself from his opponents just at this point. 

671-3. n^ppa\Tepai[L km (yyvT(\pu>i : SO T, and with the omission of the final iotas B and 
modern edd. ; noppuTepov Ka\ iyyvTipa Aid. (15 1 3); TToppwTfpov Ka\ tyyvTfpoi' Basilecnsis I 
(1534), agreeing with the corrector. Stephanus objected to the coupling of the adverbs 
without an article to the preceding adjectives, but his criticism has been answered (e. g. by 
Stallbaum and Ast) by citing (i) numerous parallels in Plato for the omission of the article 
in enumerations after the first noun, (2) instances of the coupling of adverbs with adjectives 

in e. g. Protag, 356 a ravra 8' e'o-Tt fifi'^o) re Km trp-iKpoTtpa ahX^Xuiv Kai TrXtio) /cai e'AuTTw 
Ka\ /iflXXoi' Kai T]TTuv, Philcb. 41 e TiV . . . /le/fcoi' Ka\ tis (XaTTiof Kai ris fiaWou Kai ris (j<f>obpoTfpa 

\vT!T). The objection to noppuTepov and iyyvripov here is that these adjectival forms are in 
general post-classical. Thucydides, however (viii. 96), has 8t' fyyvTarov idopv^d, while 
Xenophon frequently uses eyyvrtpov adverbially, and there is an obvious advantage in 
substituting adjectives for adverbs at this point, so that the corrector's reading is not lightly 
to be rejected on philological grounds alone. 

700-6. It is not quite certain that this fragment belongs to the Protagoras. 

740-1. Cf. 11. 223-4, n. 


1625. AicsCHlNKS, In Ctcsiplwntcm. 

32-5 X 25 cm. Second century. 

This fragment of a roll consists of three incomplete columns and a few 
letters from a fourth, covering §§ 14-37 of Aeschines' oration against Ctesiphon, 
written in a clear cursive hand of the second century, probably not later than 
the reign of Hadrian or Antoninus, to which a document found with 1625 
belongs. There were 51 or 52 lines in a column, and 24-30 letters in a line. 
Iota adscript was regularly written, and elision generally avoided. Punctuation 
was effected by paragraphi and high stops. Diaereses are sometimes placed 
over initial 1 and v ; accents, breathings, and marks of quantity are rare (11. ^^^ 
63, III). That the syllable inserted above the line in 1. 53 is in a different hand 
is not quite certain, and a still greater doubt attaches to the supposed distinction 
of hands in 1. 21. Seven other fragments of Aeschines from Egypt arc known, of 
which three (457, 703, and Hartel, Vortrag iiber die Griecli. Pap. Erz. Rainer, 
4j sqq.) belong to different parts of this oration, two (458 and 440; cf. Blass, 
Archiv, iii. 293) to the Dc falsa leg., and two (Nicole, Textes grces ined. dc Geneve, 
pp. 5-12 and P. Halle 6) to the Contra Timarehuui. 

The MSS. of Aeschines number about 27, and fall into three main families, 
called by Blass A, B, and C. In this oration A consists of ekl, B of agmn Vat. 
Laur. Flor., C of dfq Barb, h generally supports A rather than C, p usually 
agrees with B. d (loth century) is the only M.S. older than the thirteenth century, 
but C, the family to which it belongs, has generally been regarded as inferior 
to the other two, of which A is now usually considered superior to B. The 
untrustworthy character in general of the MSS. has been clearly shown by the 
papyri, most of which present a number of new and better readings, not 
infrequently establishing conjectures. 1625, which is much longer than 457 and 
703 and much older than Hartel's vellum fragments, is a carefully written 
papyrus, and naturally does not fail to make several improvements upon the 
ordinary text. The chief of these is in § 20, where two of the three families 
have an omission and the third, A, is corrupt. Here the papyrus confirms the 
simpler emendations of Lambinus, another early scholar (probably Scaliger), 
and Wolf against the more elaborate changes proposed by later editors (11. (S1-2). 
A gloss which had found its way into the text of all the MSS. in § i,;; can now 
be detected and explained with the help of the scholia (1. 19), and a gloss found 
in B and C, but not in A, in § 24 was absent from 1625 (1. 154, n.). Hamaker's 
conjecture Upix. for yipa in § 18 is confirmed (1. 61), and Cobet's objection to the 
repetition Xc'yei- . . . i\>v(Tl in § 21 is justified, though by the omission of (/)i/(ti, not 



kiyu, as he proposed (II. 94-5). A passage in § 19, in which the variation 
between present and past participles had caused difficulties, is probably set right 
(11. 69-70). The other new readings mainly concern the order of words (11. 3-4, 
58-60, 97-8, 144-5), a lacuna having obscured a variant of some magnitude in 
11. 135-6. In numerous instances evidence is provided for words which recent 
editors have wished to delete, generally in order to avoid hiatus, about which 
1625 (and probably Aeschines) was not more particular than the MSS. The 
general relation of 1625 to them is very similar to that of most other Aeschines 
papyri. A is on the whole supported more frequently than B and much more 
frequently than C, especially in important points of divergence, there being at 
least 6 agreements with A (or a of the 3 MSS. composing it) against 
BC (11. 24, 77, 81-2, 93, 116, 154 sqq.), i or 2 with AB against C (11. 78, 
134?), and 3 or 4 with AC against B (11. 25, 70, 117; cf. 11. 92-3, where 
most of the B group and one member of A are on the wrong side). On the 
other hand 1625 agrees with B against AC in 1. 73, with isolated members of 
B against all the other MSS. in 11. 62 and 131, and with BC against A at least 
5 times (11. 22 twice, 52, 53, 120, 187?). C thus comes off the worst of the 
three families in relation to 1625, since it gains no support for any of its peculiar 
readings ; but when C is in combination with A or B its relationship to 1625 is 
much the same as that of B in combination with A or C, 1625 agreeing with the 
majority in about half the instances in either case, whereas A in combination 
with B or C is confirmed in 6 out of 7, or (if II. 62 and 131 are included) 
9, instances. 

Col. i. (Col. ii.) 

[rat ray ^upoTO v^-qra^- ^rj(n\v apya.'s 14 Km KowqL ra yivq EvfioXwiSa^ Kai 

[anacra^ evt 7re/)jlA[a/3(i)i' oi'o^fiaTi 65 KtjpvKa^ Kai rovi aWovs aTTaj'Tai[-]Tra ig 

[0 yofioOiTy]^ Ka]L 7rpo[(TtnrQiy an^acra^ Xiv rou^ Tptrjpap^ovi VTrevBvvovs n 

[ap'^ai (lyai a]r Sri[nos ^etpor ovet vai KiXiVit royttos^'l o[v] ra KOiva Sia 

5 [kul roi/y eTTicrrajray (pVi'^^ "^^^ Sr]\fj.ocrL yiipicraina^ ov3 ano TCOf vjurfpcov 

[mv ipymv i(T\Tiv Se , jT^/iocr^eVjjy npoaoScoi' noWa fifp vcprjprjfio/ovs 

[T(i)(^oiTotos (]TTi<TTa\Tr]i Tov jxiyiWrov 70 ^pa\ea Si KaraOiVTa^ fTriSiSovai 

[TCOf fpycof K]ac na[i']Ta[S ocroi Sta)(_ftpt [5]e (paaKovrai anoStSovTas S( ij 

[^ovcri Ti Tcoi/ TJjly TroX([a>? nXioy tj rpi f/^']'' \jo- vp-f^npa- aXX ojj.o\oyovfj.e 

10 [aKoi'TU i]p€p]ai- Kai oa-o[L Xa/x^avov [vws rai Tra]T[p'jii]ai ovcnas eis Ttjy np o]s 

[aiv riyefxovia]s StKacTTT][piwi' 01 St [vfias ai'r]XcoKOT]ai <f)iXoTiptay ov toi 

[rcof tpyoou (]TTL(TTarai iravrts '/y« 75 [wv jxovov ol Tptripapx\oi aXXa Kai ra fie 

[pofiat ^pa)i'T]ai SiKacrjrjp lov ti tov lyiOTa tcov iv rljjt ' [TroXei <TVvi\Spia>v 



[roi/y /ftXenei] iromv ov SiaKovuv 15 
15 [aXA apyiiv 8o]Kifiaa6evTa9 ft' rloi 
[SiKacTTrjptcoi f]irfiSi] Kai at KXr/f} cotWi 
[ap)^ai ovK a5ol/ct/iatr[r]or aWa SoKifiacr 80 
[Bdaai ap^ovat K\ai \oyov Kal ivdv 
[va^ eyypa(pa'i' npos tov? [fi •]] Aoyta 
20 [rai Kadanep K]ai ras aXAas ap^as 

[KfXiva oTi 5]e aXij^ffTey ?T|] Xeyo) tov^ vo 

[povi avTovs v]fj.iv ayayyaxreraf 

[ vop\oi 

[oral' Toivvv co auSpis AQrjvaioi 16 

25 [ay o vopoO^TT]^ ap-)(a.$\ oyo/jia^et 

26 lines lost 

Col. ii. 

[0]epoi'ra- ei' yap Ta[v]Tt]i [t\iji 7r[oX]ei ov i 7 

[TQ)]y apyaL ovai]i Kai T7]\iKa.vTrj[i t]o pe 
yiOos ovSeL^ eaTiy avyin^evOyyos 

55 Tcoy Kai OTTCocTOvy npoi ra Koiva npocr 
fXrjXvdoroiy StSa^co S v^p\ai wpcoTOV 18 
€7r£ Tcoi' napaSo^coy oiov tovs t'e/sety 
Kai ray I'fpetai VTriv[6]vyovi eivai vo 
poi KfXfVii- Kai avX\Til3Srjy iravTa'S' 

60 Kai \<i>pi^ (Kaarov? Kara aoopa- Kai Tovi 
ra i[f]pa povov Xap^avovTas Kai rai 
euxay ray vnep Tjpwy npo? tovs 6tov9 
evyoptyovs' Kai ov povov iSidi aXXa 




ivrro rrjy Tooy Soclaorcof f[p)(^e]Tai yjfq 
[(poy npuiTOV pev] yap rrjy ^ov]Xtiv Trjy 20 
[ey Apeicoi naycoi] ([y]ypa(p[eiy] npoi rouy 
[XoyicTTas o vopo]? KeX[eve]i Xoyoy 
\Kai ivOvva? SiSovai] Kai tov €/<[€ij crKvQpco 
jrov Kai Toiv] peyitrTOoy [Kvpio]y ay(i 
[vTTo T-qv vperepav rj/rjcpoy ov^k a[p]a a-re[(pa 
[y(o6r]aeTai tj ^ovXt) 7/ e^ Ap€io]y nayov 
[ovSe yap vaTpiov avTOis ecrrirl ovk a 
[pa (piXoTipovvrai navv ye aXX ovk ay]a 
[ttoxtiv iay Tii nap avTois prj aSiKijk 
[aXX fay m e^apapravrji K]oXa^ov 
[criv 01 Sf vperepoi prjTopei T\pv(f>co 
[a-i naXiy tt]v ^ovXtjv tovs 7r«f]ra 
[(cocrtouy vntvOvvov nfTTOirj \K(y o yo 
[poOerrjs] Kai ovT[a>i laxvprn^] ania 21 
[ret Toiy vTi\iv6vvoi's wcrre (v6v^ ap 
[XO/iefoy] Tooc vopwy Xeyer apy^-qv 
[vnevOvvov prj ano^SrfipiO.v o) HpaKXeti 
[VTToXafioi ay riy on rjp^a p>] a]iToSr] 
[prjaca iva ye pi] TrpoXafScoy TT/ly no 
[Xecoy -yp-qpara q wpa^ei? Spaa-]p(oi 
\)(^pqa'qi naXiv vntvOvvov ov]k e 
ai rqy ovaiav KaOupovv ovSf aya]$q 
pa avadfivai ovSe eKiToiqToy] ye 
iVio-Oai ovSe SiadeaOai ra eavVov 

Col. iii. 
ovSe aXXa [TToXXa- evi Se Xoycoi eye 
■yvpa^([i 0] y[opodeTqi ray ova-iai tcov 

105 virevOvycoy ecoy [ay Xoyov anoSaxriv 

irpodiaaiovvTai pe\pi Sevpo eipqcrdo} 
por [o]ti S[e oircoy qv vnevOvros Aq 
fioa-6ev[q9 ore ovtos iiaqveyKe to 
TqinoXei- vai a XX ecTTiTii avOpcoTTOi 09 22 i\rq(pi\(7pa apx<^v Z^*" ^'7*' o-PX^v rqy ? 

ovTe eiXq(f>e[y ovSev roov Sqpoaicov 145 em Ta)[i OecopiKwi apyoay Se rqv 

Y 2 




1 10 Kf\(V(L Aoyfof Trpoy rovs Xoyiarav 

Kai TTcos ye /i[r]Siv Xa^cov /^rjSe ava 

Tcor T€t[voTroiwf ovSfTepas Sf ttco 
Toov ap^[a)i' TovTcov Xoyov vjmlv ov 
S ev6vv[ai SeScoKcoi tuvt ijSrj wei 
paaopaL ivp-as SiSaaKHv iK tcov St/ 

Xoicras aTroi<T[ei Xoyop] rrjt nloXer avTOi i-^o fioaicov y[pafxfiaTa>v Kai fioi avayvco 

VTTO^aXXei Ka[L 8i8a](TK[ii o vofios a )(^prj 
ypaifxiv /f€X6[i»et] yap avTo t[ovto] (y[y pa 

115 (pew OTi ov[Tf e\Xa^[oi' ov6](p toji' t?]s 
TToXewy [ovTi a\vaX(ocra avvmvQv 
[v\ov [S\e Kai a^-qTrjTov Kai avi^iTa.\c^^ 
To[i>\ ovBiv iariu rcof ef \Tr]]t iroXei' 
TL 8( aXrjdt] Aeyco avTwv aKovcrare 

120 Tcov ro/ia)i'['] 

$1 fwi Tiroi [ap)(^oi'Tos Kai noiov p.T)vo'i 
Kai ev Tivi [r]fj.epaL Kai ei' woiai €KkXt] 
aiai (■)^up(^TOvrjQr] A-qp.o(r6€Vqi 
TTji' apyjjv [Tr}v (tti todl decopiKooi 

Col. iv. 
28 lines lost 
'^a[t a-T€(paya)a-ai' coy toivw Kai ttjv 27 
Tco[i' Tei)(OTrotodv ap-^T]!/ rjpx^^ 0^ ov 

OTav TOU'vv ixaX[L\crTa OpacTVfrjrai 23 185 rofy to i^-q<piapia iypay^t Kai ra Srjfio 

ArjfioaOei'rjs Xsy^coV coy Sia Trjv eniSo 
aiv \ov\k ecTTiv i/7reii[^i'j'oy] eKeifo av 
125 Tas[i fTrlo/SaXXere- ov[k ov]v eXP'?'' °'^' 
(o A-qfiocrdevi^ eaerfat tov\ T[<i>]v Xoyicr 
Tdiv KT]pvKa Krip[v]^a[i to 7r]a[Tp]toi' Kai 
ivvopov Krjpvypa -p^ovTo] r(y /SofXe 
Tai KaTriyopeiv €a(j[oi' a/i](piaPr]TTjaai 

I 30 (TOl TOV ^OvXo/i[€VOl' TWl'] Tr[oX]lTa)l' 

ojy ovK eiTiSe[Sa)Ka9 aXX ano] ttoX 
X<ov (t>v ex^.'L^ ^'^ '"'?'' "^^^ Tiix<i)\v 
oiKo8ofj.[iav /iiKpa KaTtQ-qKa^ SiKa Ta 
XavT[a ety Tavra tK rrjs noXecoi eiX-ij 

135 0<«)y t^rj yapTra(t ttjv (piXoTipiav 

Xov p-rfySi i^aipov TOiV SiKaaTuiv Tai ■^rj 
0oi;y (K t](i)v )(eipa>y fJ.r]8f ep.npoo'Oev 
Twy Pofi[a>v aXXa vaT.epoi noXiTevov 
TavTa ya[p op6oi Trjv 8i^fM0KpaTiai'- npoi 24 
140 fiii' ovv T[ay Kivas ? npocjiacreis ay ovtoi 

(Tia [■^prjfiaTa 8iexeipt^e Kai firi^o 
Xa[y enejSaXXe KaOairep 01 aXXoi 
apy^ovTii Kai 8iKacrTr)pLwv -qye/xo 
18 lines lost 

3. o miin6(Tr)i, which must have stood in the lacuna, was bracketed by Weidner 


and Blass. Whether 1625 had n-po[(7«7r<o>/ with most MSS. and edd., or T!po[(fK(av with dnq, is 
uncertain. Cf. § 17, where BC have Trpoaum'tv, A rightly npoeint'iv. 

3-4. a;r]aaas | [apxa^  "pxas andirat MSS. Probably 1625 is right, and the reading of 
the MSS. is due to the influence o[ dpxas andaas in 11. 1-2. 

6-7. [st]po(T6e]fr]i was bracketed by Schanz and Blass, while after Tfixoirnios Halm 
inserted &v, for which there is not room here. 

8. 7ra[rlro[t : SO most MSS. and edd. ; but mi[i>'Tf[s could be read with e. 

18. KOI fv6v[vai was bracketed by Dobree and Blass. 

19. TTpos Tous |£i .]] Xoyi(T[Taf : npos Tof ypapparea xni tovs \oyurTus MSS. ; cf. Schol. B (on 

the margin of a printed book ; source unknown) ypapparia Xtyti tuv eludrWa iv tm Kmva Wi toC 

&r]pov ypuppara dvayivaaKfiv, and Schol. gm Vat. Laur. \oyiaTi)s fVuo-Ti/f (pv\t]s fis. ypapparea Se 
(Ka(TToi ft'v'ii'. Xfyet Dvv vvv Tov T(av XoyttTTWi'. aXXwf* tipxovrfs rjcrav fie/ca ijprjpivoi KoXovpcvoi 

\oyia-Tai . . . The omission of t6v ypapparia Kai in 1625 brings this passage into line with 

11. 79—80 i[y]ypa(f>.eiv\Trpos Tons [Xoyio-Tof and 109— lO ano(p€p(ivj K«Xf uf i Xoy[oj/ Trpof rovt \oyt(TTai, 

where the MSS. equally ignore the ypa/ipaTevi. The scholia do not really support the 
lon<i-er reading. The logistae no doubt had ypapparfls, but the order of the words and the 
use of the singular ypapparia show that these are not meant here, while the explanation of 
Schol. B is not at all convincing, for the ypappartvi who read the laws, &c., in the assembly 
was quite a different kind of official from the Xoyio-mi, and not likely to have been specially 
concerned with eiSCfni. A comparison of 1. 22 dmyvaa-fTm (sc. 6 ypappardi) with § 124, 
where most MSS. have dfayvoxreTM vplv 6 ypappmevs [dvdyvwBi Blass with e), indicates that 
Schol. B has been misplaced, and really refers to 1. 22, while tov ypapparia kuI in the MSS. 
at ]. 19 is a corruption arising out of this very scholium or one like it owing to a mistaken 
idea that tov ypapparea occurred in the text about this point, the accusative case suggesting 
1. 19 as a suitable point for the insertion of the words with Km to restore the construction. 
With regard to the deletion before Xoyio-Taf there were, as the scholium states, 10 of these 
officials ; but it is unlikely that a second-century scribe would place a diaeresis instead of a 
stroke above i (which is fairly certain), if it meant lo, and he seems to have written or begun to 
write another letter after i, though it is not clear how much ink belongs to a stroke of deletion. 

21. KfXfufi, which must have stood here, is deleted by several editors, but not by 

a\ri6i] : of the supposed t\ above the line only a vertical stroke remains, and the cor- 
rection may be due to the first hand : the nature of the original reading is still more 

22. avTuvs ulftii/ : so BC ; vplv nvTovs A, Blass. 

avayvaa-fTm : SO BC, BlaSS ; dvayvare A. C f. 1. I 9, n. 

23. vop]oi: SO most MSS. and edd. ; vApos a ; om. ep Vat.' 

24. avbpt\s: so A, Blass; om. BC. 

25. as o vopoBtTi^s apxas"\ ovopa^ei ] [ourot : SO AC, Blass ; 6 p(v vupo6. dpxui ivopd^r) olrni 
Se B, Schultz. 

52. iv : fi5 kl. 

53. apxniai: SO MSS. ; dpxaicfif) Blass, to avoid hiatus. 

rr;X tlCQDTi)[i : SO BC, BlaSS ; TotiaVTJj A. 

55. KaL : om. Ip Vat. -n-pos : tU p. 

57. otoK : o'r p. Upeis : SO MSS. ; ifpf'as edd. 

58—9. o vopos KcXevfl : KfX. o voti, MSS. Cf. 11. 66—7, n. 

59. navras ". aTravras MSS. 

60. Kat Tovs : om. Km MSS. 

61. <[e]pa : SO Hamaker; yepa MSS., Blass. The top of the i is lost, but one of the 
two dots is visible, upd is no doubt right, the point being that priests got no public money. 


The confusion was easy ; cf. the spellings Ufiri and Te/ii/ for the same Oxyrhynchite village 
(1285. 98 and 1444. 34) and tiytpov for upov in P. Weil vi. 6. 

fiovov : so most MSS., Blass ; fiova ag Vat., Laur. 

62. Tflf : om. MSS. r)nav: so a; vy.Siv the rest, Blass. 

64. Ta : so most MSS., Blass ; rara hm yp. 

65—6. TToKiv : Ka\ TToKtv q. 

66—7. (ivai KiXcvfi : KtXciiei dvai p Vat. Cf. 11. 58-9, n. 

67-8. Siaxf ipicrat'Tas : the last a is corr. from f. 8iaxetpl(ovTas some edd., but cf. 
11. 69-70, n. 

69. npoaoSo)!/ was bracketed by Bake and Blass. 

69—70. ii(f>ripriii(vovs . . . KaradfVTas : icpaipovpeuovs . . . KaTiiBemas AC ; vcpaipovfievovs . . . 

KOTaTidevTos B, Blass. Probably 1625 is right, and the reading of B is an emendation of 
that of AC, which is a corruption of the papyrus te.xt. 

70-1. eiTiSiSoi/ai [&]e : SO MSS. ; oiS' fVi&fiocm /iev Blass. 

73. Tas 7ra\[pan^as : SO B, Blass ; for Toi/f Tcis nar. (AC, except d) there is not room. 

77. biK]a(TTo)v : so kl ; SiraCTTjjpiui/ the rest, Blass. 

78. TT^v. so AB, Blass; om. C. 

81. SiSorat, which must have stood here, was deleted by Cobet, but not by Blass. 

81—2. Kai Tov .«[€(] <7Kv0po)^Trov Kai Tcop] iKyiuTtnv ^Kvpio\v ayn: SO Orelli, Baiter and 
Sauppe, Simcox (jov . . . <TKvfipwnm Lambinus and marg. Bern. ; I'lya Wolf) ; k. rav (Ktl 
0Kv6pa>Tji>v K. T. pey. Kvpiov ayiiv B ; om. AC ; k. Trjv tK. iTKvDpioTtov . . . Kvpiav ayn. Wolf, Reiske, 
Bekker, and, with ayav instead of nyfi to avoid hiatus, Blass ; cf. int. There is not room for 
[Kvpiajf in 1. 82, even \{ tov in 1. 81 did not require [nupioV. 

84. i\ liov\rj j; (| Ap(to]v nayov was bracketed by Blass to avoid hiatus. 

92—3. a7Tto[T(i TOis VTT]ev6vmis : so Cahkl Vat. yp., edd. dnaiTel Toiis vnevSvvovs egmnp 

Laur. Vat. 

93. (vBvs : so A, Blass ; cvdias BC. 

94. \(yei : this was deleted by Cobet, the MSS. having after v-neuBwov in 1. 95 (^^o-t, 
which was clearly omitted in 1625 and is not necessary. 

apxn^ : this was deleted by Hamaker, while Dobree preferred npx'i^- 
97-8. The MSS. have TTpoKafiwv xp'ipaTa TJjr TidXeas rj 7rpn|fir, from which 1625 clearly 
varied in regard to the position of Trjs n-dXea)? and xp'iiJ^'"', and possibly by the insertion of ni 

after npoXafiav. 

103-4. f«];(upaff[i : so B ; evexvpiaCft A', fi/6;(eipaffi Or -pifei C. 

104. o] v[o^oftT;)j raj ovatac tup: SO A; rat ovcrias 6 vopoStrrjt tqs Taij/ BC, Blass ; om. 

6 vopoBirr)! Cobet. T\as ovaiui Can be read in place of o] v\oiio6iTr)s, but the insertion of to? 
before raiv would make the line too long, while the omission of o vopodeTrjs would leave it too 
short, so that A's reading is the most probable, especially since 1625 shows no tendency to 
avoid hiatus. 

105. The supplement is rather short, and perhaps 1625 had anobibaaiv with c; 
anohaai. most MSS., Blass ; anohaxTr; hq Bern., itrufiaad Vat. Laur. 

1 1 3-1 4. o I'o/jos a xpi] ypncfidv was bracketed by Hamaker and Blass. 

116. ni'i>7r<D^i'[i']oi' : so A ; av(v6vvof BC, Blass. 

117. (/fi)Ti)Toi/ Kai a>'f|fTn[(T]ro[i'' : SO AC, Blass ; avf^. Koi afi)T. B. 

120. Tcov voiiwv : so BC, Blass ; twv iv t^ TrdXti A. 

121. vopoL : so most MSS. ; vopos 1 ; om. agp Vat. 

124-5. <"""<»'[i : so most MSS. ; avrh glm ; om. Blass on account of hiatus. 

127. KrjpvKa : Kvpiov g. 

131, (TnBt[8a>Kas : SO g ," aneSaKai q; (TTtSwKas the rest, Blass. affo, which must have 
stood in the lacuna, is omitted by ek. 


132. e\(i[i  SO MSS., Blass ; ('x*? (Bake) is inadmisBiblc. 

134. fis ravra (K Tr]s TroAfwr is re&toied from most iMSS., but C omits hs and el have 
TToXiTflas for TioXfws-, while Blass omits «, and Bekker reads ex raif tJjs. The length of the 
lacuna favours the presence of both as and ex, but not twv as well. 

135-6 \\ov : a and fi are the only alternatives to X, and the lacuna may be 2 or 

3 letters shorter than as printed, but hardly any longer. The MSS. have nothing between 
(piKoTiixiav and liTjSe. An imperative either preceded by /jij or governing apiia(ttv (instead of 
apTra(() seems most likely, but f'|\nO is not satisfactory. 

140. Whether 1625 had Koims with the MSS. or Kems, the generally accepted correction 
of Stephanus, is uncertain. 

144—5. Trjv apxiv Trju?^ \ cni tw[i BtapLKai : ti)v eV'i to) 6, apxt)V (MSS., except h fVi tuv 

dtapiKoiv) does not suit, rrjv before apxriv can be omitted from the restoration, but cf. 1. 154. 
Blass proposed fVi to BeapiKuv in both places, comparing § 25 and avoiding hiatus in 1. 145 ; 
most MSS. in 1. 154 have tmi/ BeapiKoiv (which may of course have been the reading of 1625 
in both places), but cdq have tw 6eu>piKoi. 

146. fie is omitted by df, noi by Ap Vat., and it is not certain that both these words 
should be restored. 

153. The restoration is rather short, containing only 16 letters compared with 21 in 
the two lines above (1. 154 may be short for special reasons; cf. n.) ; and o may be 
inserted before AripocrSevT]!. The loss of it would be easy owing to the hiatus. 

154. After Twi deiDpiKwi. (or rav dfuipiKcov ; cf. 11. 144-5, ^■) -^C proceed on pia-ovi'Ta Ttjv 
tip\rjv fypayj/fv aiiTOU crrfpavovv avaylvoxTKf (^avaytvoiaKiTf some IMSS.) diahoyifrpos twv fjufpatif, 

(SiaX. T. Tip. om. B); w'hile of the A group e has only ilrfi(pi(Tpa (so Blass) and kl omit the 
title as well as the preceding sentence, on . . . dvayivaaKe was deleted by Bekker and 
subsequent editors as a gloss, but some retain SiaXoyiapos twv rjpepaiv as the title. Allow- 
ing for a title at the top of Col. iv corresponding to 1. 121, there is certainly not room 
for more than 27 lines of continuous text, and there may have been only 26, so that 
it is practically certain that the gloss was omitted by 1625, as in A. 

187. The papyrus may have had KaSantp km m aWoi with C, but is unlikely to have 
omitted aXXoi with A. 


(n = Ihe papyrus in i/Heslion.) 

'A/ieX 1600. 2 2. 
"lyyiXui 1603. 12. 
uyta- 1600. 57. 
ayws [1601. 4.] 
<iSeX<;()o$ 1600. 22.' ; 1602. 29. 
udepimtvTos 1603. 2 I . 
(Il8eicr6nt 1603. I 7. 
alp.u 1600. 38. 

ulwvwi 1602. 29. 
dicoi'fii' 1602. I. 
nXAa 1600. 16. 
uWos [1600. 31.] 
u\X6(j)v\oi 1602. 9, 15. 
«V 1602. 31. 
(ira/iniVir 1601. [2], 8. 
dmiSrjs 1603. 15. 

lirtupfii' 1602. 24-5. 
dvapWfirjTos 1601. II. 
ucSpiaiTaros 1603. 4. 
aieu [1601. 9.] 
avrji) 1601. 24. 
I'tvopm 1602. 27. 
aVOfJLQi 1602. 2, 7- 

avo<Tia>Te pos 1602. 8. 
duri 1601. 34. 

tn'Tl8lK0S 1601. I 3. 

avvSpm 1602. 17. 

uTTo 1602. 5. 

(i770(3X£'7reii' 1600. 17. 21, 33. 

dnoXXvifat IQOl. 19. 

dnoTcpveiv 1603. 1 1 . 

(iTTtiXfin [1601. 5.] 

'Apci8 {aSap n) 1602. 9. 

apldpvs 1601. 0. 

(ipviov 1600. 56. 

aTifui^eiV 1603. I 4 ? 

niTor 1601. [8]. 19. 24; 

1602. 5, </ .f,?,/. ; [1603. 




^atJiXfiJs 1602. 8. 
jiovXtaBai 1600. 19. 

j yap 1600. 12, [41 J; 1601. 
I 4,11; 1602. 6 ; 1603. 

I 7^1601. 3; 1602. 13, 37. 

' yivaxTKCLV 1600. 2 1. 
ypdtpfi" 1601. 32. 
yparp<) [1600. 39.] 
■ywr} 1601. 29; 1603. I, (■/ 


AaVfiS [1600. 48.] 

6e'1600. 6 ; 1601. [12], 20, 

27 ; 1603. II, 19. 
becfieCfiv 1603. 9. 
8^ 1600. 4. 

8q\oi'v 1600. 7 ? ; 1601. 21. 
Sui 1600. 6, 18, 22?, 39; 

1603. 2. ct sai-p. 
hmlioloi 1601. 14. 
bibovai 1602. II. 
bUaws 1601. 26. 
hitraos 1603. 20. 
SiwKcii' 1603. 8. 

Socris 1600. 19? 

auwi/nit 1602. 39. 

e.iV 1600. 16; 1601. 32; 
1603. i(). 

iavTOV 1602. 36. 

iyu> 1601. 23, 30. >;/if'f 

[1600. 8 : 1601. 7J : 
1602. 20, 36. 
eSa<f>i(eir 1603. 6. 
i e6viKm 1601. 34. 

(dvm 1601. [2], 6, [12], 33. 

ei' 1600. 19. 

fiW [1600. 12 ; 1601. 7] ; 

1602. 7, 37. 
(.'9 1600. 17, 22-34, [47, 


eV,V|1600. 3. 5; 1601. 33; 

1602. 2, 6, 12. 
eV/tXTjo-m 1601. 33. 
iKTripireiv 1602. 1 9. 
cKTiSemi 1600. 29. 
epirpoa-eiv 1600. 44. 
fV 1600. [8], 34; 1601. 21, 

26 ; 1602. lO; 1603. 9. 
e^ol-o-i'n 1601. 6. 
fVayyt'XXf ii" 1602. I 3. 
eVfi 1602. 10. 
€77t 1601. 3, 24--,, 30 ; 1602. 

18, 39- 
fm(l<jp{ ) 1601. 33. 
(pe'tv [1603. I I.] 
fptjpps 1602. r6. 
efr;^aTos 1602. 39. 
eVi 1602. 1 1 . 
ei'-SoKiH 1602. 34, 
i'xetv 1603. 19. 

i'ajf 1602. 31. 
C!jv 1602. 26. 

IriTUV 1601. I 5. 
fcor) 1600. [43]. 48. 

'HXei 1603. 6. 
I Ijpfpa [1600. 46.] 
'Ho-niHS [1600. 34.] 

ee6i 1600. 18; 1601. 27 ; 
1602. 3, 10. 


6pr)veiv 1601. 23, 25, 27. 
6pr)veiitv 1601. 28. 

Upivi 1603. 6, 16. 

'Itjo-oCs 1602. 21, 35. 

'icrpnijX 1602. 3. 

iV;^i'^of 1601. [3], 8. 

iV^Y^s 1602. I 2. 

'loxiwi/f 1603. I I . 

'Imo-ij^ 1600. 26 ; 1603. 9. 

Ka6i),j6,u [1601. 30.] 

Katrn'f 1600. 10, 12, 15, 18. 

Kdipo't 1602. 40. 
Ki'iKiaTos 1603. 18. 

KOKOV 1603. 20. 

KaKonaOf'iv 1602. 23. 

KaKws [1600. 32.] 

Kapmis 1602. 12. 

Kara 1600." 14, 16 ; 1601. 

II ; 1602. 21, 26. 
KaToliiiXXdv 1603. 12. 
KaTnTTLVtw 1601. 15. 
Kepavvelv 1601. 1 8. 
KTjpvtraeilf 1602. 20. 
KKripnvopla 1602. 28. 
Kkjjpoi 1602. 2 2. 
Koapas [1601. 6.] 
KpipavvvvtiL 1600. 44. 
xvpios 1600. [5], 13, 20, 

40; [1601. 3]; 1602. 4, 

20, 33- 
Kvpovii 1602. 32. 

Xa/i/SaifiK 1602. 22. 35. 

Xmif 1602. 24. 

X/yeu' 1600. 49; 1601. II, 

25. 29. 
MmTr]s 1603. 16. 
Xe'mi' 1601. I 3. 
'Koyi^faBai. 1600. 58. 
Xo'yof 1602. 38. 

paKpus 1600. 3, 5. 

piv 1600. 14, [41 1 ; 1601. 

piviiv 1602. 30-1. 
pfpiapos 1602. 2 2. 
pfTii 1601. 2 2 ; 1602. 9, 16. 
MfA/" 1602. 3. 

pi'l 1601. 30, 34. 

/iucrT/jpi.)i< 1600. 13. 20, 40. 

■Maiaijs 1600. 28, 42 ; 1601. 

vrja-Tfiew 1601. 28. 
vtKr]T,)t 1602. 30. 
voptCdf 1600. II. 
vopos 1600. 15. 
roif 1601. 2. 
viv 1602. 29. 
v{,$ 1600. 46. 

oSovs 1601. 13. 

opoiwi 1600. 24-32. 

oTrXoy 1602. 34. 

opCw 1600. 18, 43. 

if 1601. 10. 25; 1602. 4. 

Sa-os 1602. 16. 

Sa-nep 1601. 2 1. 

0<Tn5 1602 2 1. 

Sti 1594. 15 ; 1600. i ; 

1601. [2, 13], 28, [30], 
31-2; 1602. 39. 

ov, ovK 1600. 47; 1602. 5; 
1603. 16, 17. ot. ^i;1601. 

30. ovx ori 1594. 15. 
oiSels 1603. 15. 
oupavos 1603. 7* 

OCpws 1603. 1 .' 

ovTos 1601. 6, II-I2, 22, 34 ; 

1602. 18. 

ovTw{i) 1600. 4 ; 1602. 37. 
ocpeaXpoi 1600. 45. 

77,;6os 1600. .5. 
TraXato's 1600. lO, 12, 14. 
miXn 1601. 8. 
7Tnl>TOT![n6rji } 1603. 10. 
TTapdiSatTit 1603. 3. 
mipayew [1603. 3.] 
TTtipaKapiiiiviiv 1602. 38. 
TTiipixiiv 1602. I 8. 
TTus 1603. 13-14, 17-18. 
7rci(r;^fii' 1600. 32. 
•nmcKTtjfty 1600. 36. 
ztpi 1600. 38. 
■ntpiTTintiv [1601. I 4. I 

ij(pni6fvai 1601. 20. 

7TLTTpaiJK€lV \{yOO. 2 "J . 

7n(TTtv(u' 1600. 47. 
iriiTTti 1600. 2. 
TrXoCruf 1603. 19. 
Tivtxjpa 1602. 23, 26, 39. 
^TV(v^a^^K6^ 1601. 7* 
TToXis [1600. 37.] 
novripm 1603. I 9. 
Tj-ofi/pof 1603. 1 8. 
■rropvtveiii 1601. 29, 30. 
TToa-i'iKts 1602. I . 
TrpojBaTuu 1600. 35. 

TTpos 1600. 3?; 1601. 23; 
1602. 4. 10, 33; 1603. 3. 

i7potTfXcii(rit 1602. 32. 

TTpo(brjTfVilV 1600. 42. 

wpo^r/T/js- 1602. II); 1603. 

7Tpo(j>T]TlK6^ 1600. 39. 

TTparov 1601. 31. 

^iVrfti' 1601. 1 8. 
pveaOm 1602. 3. 

(TtlKKOS 1601. 24. 

2a;Ln|^Mi/ [1603. 4.] 

0-rjp€puv 1600. 7- 

2o\opa>v 1603. 3. 

(ro(f>aTiiros [1603. 2.] 

CTTpaTtoy-nji 1602. I . 

av. vpe'ti 1600. 43, 45, 48 ; 

1601. 14 ; [1603. II.] 
aip(j>VTOi 1602. 33. 
iTwcpyfii' 1603. 20. 
(Tfpayii [1600. 56.] 
aipiiCf" 1600. 35. 
<T(pii\Xeiv 1602. 27. 
a-wCup 1600. 37 ; 1602. 6. 

T(i|if 1602. 21. 

Ta7T(il>0(ppO<TVI'l] 1599. 42- 

TfXfioiT 1600. 8 ? 

TfTOpTOS 1601. 10. 

T<]peii' 1602. 4, II. 
Ttpt'if 1603. 16. 
Tit 1603. II. 

ToivvV 1600. 19. 

Tvyxui'Cii' 1600. 8 ; 1601. 9. 



rinroi 1600. 6, 17. 
TvtjAovv 1603. 5- 

vlos 1601. 5 ; 1603. 6. 
{inif) 1602. 36. 
v7t6 1602. 24. 
intofiiveiv 1602. 3I. 
vnoTa(T<Tfw 1602. 14. 

^vat 1601. 4. 

*apom 1602. 6. 
cj)€iSfa0ai 1603. 15.? 

(fioveietv 1600. 23 ; 1603. 14- 
0WIJ' 1602. 36. 
(jbliXno; 1603. 9. 

Xararaciii 1602. 14. 

xdpii 1600. I, 16. 

Xelp 1602. 2, 6. 

XpicTos 1602. I, 21, 23, 35. 

ivx'i 1601. 4, .5- 

•Jly 1602. 8. 

is 1600. [34 J, 56; 1601. 34; 

1602. 37. 
'Qtrrjf 1601. 29. 

offi;* 1600. 25. 

(a) 1604 (PiND.AR, Dithyravtbs). 
{Large Roman ninncrah refer to the different poems ; seh. = sclioliinn.) 
'A^as I. 9. 

ayiw [II. 28 ?] 
ay{\n II. 23. 
dyi'Ofii' I. 6; sell, 
dypdrtpo? II. 21? 
de'|(if I. 14. 
alyis II. 17. 
aWufxevos II. 10. 

(IKI/a/iTTTfi III. 12. 

aKovfLV II. 29. 

dXnXd II. 13. 

aXKafts II. I 7. 

aXfia I. 16. 

d^TTi'fiV II, 15. 

uva$ I. 3. 

ttvBpcimos II. [3J, 3^* 

di'iordi'ai II. 25. 

av'fi Toi) III. 7 Sch. 

uvTia-Tpo(l>rj I. 20 sch. 

doiSd I. 14 ; [II. i] ; III. 17. 

OTTO 1. I ; [II. 3.] 

077 . . o( ) I. 20 sch. 
upa I. 6 ? 
"\pyos I. 7- 
'.\pfiovia II. 27. 
".Xpi-f/iir II. 19. 
daTTaaicos I. 31 ? 
avTos I. 6 sch. 
av)(fiv III. 14. 

BuK;(iOf II. 2 1. 

^XoJCTKfll' I. 19. 

'EXXdf II. 25. 

/Spicrdp/iaTor 11. 26. 

fV I. 7 ; II. 8, 10, 12, 

^pOfjLu'lS I. II. 

fvBa II. 27. 

Bpo^ios II. 6, [21]. 

*Ki'i'(iXto9 II. 1 6. 

^poTos I. 15. 

tor I. 20 and sch., 34. 

e'l I. 20 sch. 

yapfTii II. 27. 

f^aipfTOS II. 23. 

ydp I. 15. 

eVi I. 23 sch. 

yiirai' III. 10. 

eviSupaTts III. 13 sch. 

7€«d [II. 30.] 

fni/iaxos I. 23 sch. 

rop-ydrtf I. 5. 

en-ot II. 24. 

fparos I. 8. 

Aatia[ I. I. 

fpiySovnos II. I 2. 

Sas II. II. 

ipKoi I. 16. 

§€ I. 6 and sch., 15 ; II. [4], 

fpndv II. I. 

10, 12, 15, 19, 22-3, 29. 

fpXf"6ai III. 9, 25 .' 

S.) III. 9 ? 

tTI I. 14. 

dianfTaiivvadni II. 4. 

fvdfilTV^ I. I 3. 

Si6i'paii0os II. 2. 

(vdaipoiif I. II. 

ALoiwcriaKoi/ I. 10 Sch. 

fifSo^of II. 30. 

Awvvaos II. 31. 

fCxfo-^ai I. 15 ; II. 26 

6io( ) I. 6 sch. 

Sopos I. 8. 

ffwywi/ai I. 8 ; II. 20. 

6/}d/ccDf II. 18. 

Ziiis II. 7, 29. 

e I. 6 and sch. 

^ II title. 

tyxor II. 17. 

'HpnicX^s II title. 

f'-yti II. 23. 

ripivot III. 19 .' 

elSfvni II. 5. 

efrat I. 6 sch. 

^dXof I. 14. 

«s I. 6 sch. 

Savaros I. 36- 



enlioi [II. 26.] 
etjiiawi II title. 

Orjp II. 2 2. 
6o!va I. II. 
dpaavs II title. 

leVat ('go') II. 19. 
ip6s[U. 4.] 
laTavm II. 8. 

KdS,ios II. 28. 

(tat I. 16 ; II. 3, 7, 


Ka)<\ixopos II. 25 ? 
/capti| II. 24. 
(carappffii/ II. 8. 
KfSpos II. 28? 

K(v I. [34] and sch. 

Kepavvos II. I 5. 
Kfpffepos II title. 
K6;^AaS€V«t II. 10. 
KijXeii/ II. 2 2. 
/ci/SSaXof [II. 3.] 

KlKfll/ II. 16. 

Kiaaivos III. 7. 
xXay-yd II. 18. 
kKovos II. 14. 
Kiipi) I. 17 sch. 

Kopvcfid 1 . 12. 

KOlJp?) [I. 17.] 

Kpf/idKllji'ai III. 12. 
KpoTdXa II. 10. 
KpoTarpus III. 8. 


kvk'Kos II. 4. 

KwXui// I. 6, 10 sch. 

Xa')';(di/fiK [II. 28 .'] 
Xc'yfiK I. 2, 15, 23 sch. 
\fijifor6m I. 4. 
Xe'mv II. 21. 

pai'la II. 13. 

parrjp II. 9, 32. 

piyapa II. 8. 

/ieyof I. 7 ; II. 9. 

fi/Xus I. 16. 

pf\i((iv III. 6. 

/x<V II. [i], 8; III. 3. 

IKTaypdcpftf I. 6 sch. 

22, 30 

Moiffa II. 25. .Moio-ai I. 1 4. 
pvpios II. 18. 

Na'idSft II. 12. 
valitv I. 35- 
viot II. 5- 
viv I. 16. 



II. 16. 

[II. 4.] 

^av66i II. II. 
|ei/iff(r5ni I. 10 sch. 

d I. [10] and sch., 34 sch. 

II- 3. 15. [16]. 22. 
o I. 6 sch. 

oiondXos II. 19 and schol. 
oius II. 6. 
oX/3ot II. 26 .? 

o/i<^d II. 29. 
npyi] II. 20. 
oplvitrOai II. I 3, 
Ovpavihai II. 7* 
oJtos I. 6 sch. 
ovTuis I. 6 sch. 
o(^is- II. 18 sch. 

TTayKpaTTjs II. 15. 

riaXXiis II. 17. 

nap II. 9. TTiipd II. 7, [30]. 

TTOT^p I. 5, 17. 

neXfiv III. 13. 

TTf^ttrfrus- I. 34 sch. 7T(pi(J(r(oi 

I. 20 sch. 
neraXov III. 19. 
nfVKT} II. II. 

ttXektos III. 7 sch. .' 

TrXoKor III. 7. 

TToXl?. TToXe'n HI. 9. TTToXtf 

I. 6. 

TTOi/OS HI. I 0. 

TTore II. 27. 


TTpanides II. 28. 
npiiTfU' 1. II. 
TT^tr II. I. 

TT/jofTii'yctt' I. 20 sch.? 
TTpvravii III. I O. 

TlToKli I. 6. Cf. TToAiJ. 

TTV^rf II. 4. 

fiilJ.<f>a II. It;. 
{pi)y\raixii^ II. 13. 
f>6fi(^os II. 9. 
pvea-Oai III. 14. 

o-uf II. 3. 
(Te^i/of II. 8. 
(TKaTTTOi' II. y. 

CTKOTTfAoj III. 10. 

aoXotKtanos I. 6 sch. 

(T0(p6s II. 24. 

o-raut? III. 3. 

(JT€(f)aVOS HI. 7- 

o-roX[ III. 24. 
ard/:ia [II. 3. J 
a-Tovaxd II. I 2. 
(TTpaTid III. 1 1. 

O-U. VfifXL [I. 15.] 

(Tuyyoi'oy I. 17. 
(Tvv II. 14. 
(T;(Oi^orej/r}$' [11, I.J 

Tafiias III. 23. 

re I. 19 ; II. [l], 10, I3, 

[16], 17, [26]; III. 10, 

12-13, 17. 

TfXf7<i I. 33 ; II. 6 ; III. 6. 

TfOt III. 6. 

Tidii'ai I. 13. 

TLKTfLV II. 30. 

Tu |/j|7rtti/a II. 9. 

tTrd II. II. 
v-^av)(r)v II. I 3. 
v\j/i]\6s II. 28. 

<pdpa II. 27. 

tpdyeiv I. 16. 

(jidoyyd^effOal II. I 8. 

(piXos III. 9. 

<tdpKos- I. 17. 

(^iXov II. 21; III. 18 

Xd/)/ia III. 13. 
)^opevfiP II. 2 2. 
Xopos III. I 6. 

(is I. 6 sch. 



ib) Other Classical Fragments. 

(1600 is to he snppUcd before the figures in thick type. The extant portion 
of 1608 is not indexed, except the proper names.) 

liyaSos 5. 4S, 
^Ayafiijo-Toift 13. 2. 
aynl'fiKTfZi' 6. 'jO'J , 543* 
aypi'n 11. 1 63. 
llyovoi 11. 1)5. 
ayofHi [11. 73.] 
ahf\<pri 7- 283. 

(ISfX^iSoCt 10. S6. 

nS(X0ds 6. 7, fifiij; 10. 143? 

ahiKelv 6. 115, 117. 

ciSiVos 6. 429. 
a^vvaroi 7. 59* 
a^arao-ta 12. 31. 

\\6riva'ioi e. 176; 10. 73, 201 ; 12. 21. 
'Xlhrji 11. 271. 
mpuvlO. 45, 75, 267 .' 
AiaifilSqs 13. 7' 
Al(t\v\os 13. 3. 
aiTitifrdal 11. 225. 
aKoiTfov 11. 7 2 . 

axowiK 5. 46 ; 6. 129, 136, 143, 147, 379, 
496; 7. 250; 9. 15. 

* AKOvatXaos 11. 52. 

(iKpoTToXt?. rifpi nK. 11. 103. 

aXy^fiwl' 11. 247 .^ 

aXrjflcof 11. 43. 

nXiV/cf.T^ai 10. 106 ; 11. 67. 

'AXKt/3id6/;? 8. 50. 

\\\K,ji(ayv {11) li. 87. 91 ; (/') 13. 5. 

dXXa 6. 83, [233], 243, 502, 705; 7. 44> 

126, [161]. 164 ; 8. 36 ; 9. II ; 10. 163 ; 

11. 198; 12. 14. 
«XXof 6. 223, 259, 535 ; n. 60. 
nWoTpios 6. 179- 
Spa 6. 352 ; 10. [123], 125. 
atiaprdfciv 6. .544- 
dfidpTrjpa 6. 180. 
ap.apTt][ 8.81. 
fipovaos 8. 9. 14. 
<ln(j)ia lirjTf'm 6. .547: 604. 
(ipcfioTfpos 7. 1 15- 
UP 6. [114], 118, 123, [234], 235, 260, 504, 

53C; 7.40.63,228; 8.37,(48); 9.18; 

10. 242.'; 11. 240; 12. 10, 24, 26. 
ill' ^ ft'iv 6. 340 ? 

dvdydv B. 34. 

dvnyKii^fLV 6. 254, 353. 

dmyKaltis 8. 8, 12 ; 10. 4. 

im'iyKrjQ. 181, 293, 295, 482. 

dvnypdc^^fiv W. 1 05. 

ai/n('fr_;^ujTOf 6. 7.>'^- 

dfaKXams- 9. I I , 

di/njcoti'oCfr^at 10. I 28. 

dviiKnp^dvav 7. 87. 

(li'a/ii/ir'7;(rKety {^avapvr)piVKfiv D) 6. I 78. 

Ai/uCTj^trof 7. 218. 

avfiv 11. 127. 

d>'>7p 6. 98.', 935; 10. 75, 268?; 11. 62. 

a> ni-fi. BiKaTTai 6. 77, II4, 220, 368, 377, 

859; 7. 221. dvSpdat 6. 330. 
nvdpanos 6. 225; 7. 1 6, 42, 1 95 ; 8. 8, 29, 

52; 11. 64; 12. 16. 
di/tf'j'nt 12. 28 .i" 
dvi')i)TOi 6. 357* 
«j'om 8. 41. 
dvapws 6. I 59. 
dvTi)(ftj6ai 7. 172. 
dm 6. 171 ; 11. 29 ? 
dvrihiKos 6. 133. 
nvriTTpdmiv 7. 90. 
tivaSev 11. 81. 
/i^ios 6. 659. 
d^ioCi' 6. II, 78, 320, 326 ; 7. 193 ; 10. 24 ; 

11. 46. 
dnaiTuv 6. 264. 
uTTaiTijiTii 6. 273. 
d-TTaXui' 11. 77* 
aTTifi'ot 9. 18. 

uTTo 5. 35; 9. 19 ; 10. 94. "TTij 11. 91. 

dnnyiyt'ojrTKflv 8. 29. 

aTToSftKM'j'nt 6. 533* 

aTTobqpfiv 7. 285, 

dwoSlSiii/al 6. 14, 31-2, 46-7, 370, 381-2. 

d7Tn6vTj(TKei.v 10. IO4 ; 11. 83. 

diroiKi^fw 10. 59. 

dnoKTjpvTTeii' 8. 39. 

dnoKopi^(a0ai 11. 2 22 ? 

I'nrnKTfivfti' 6. 9 ; 11. 228. 

«7roXa;i/:^di'f tf 6. 2 I 7. 

dTr'A/yfiK 7. 28, 58 .? 



'AjroXAoSmpof 8. 34. 
CTToAXiTai 6. 83. 
anoKoye'iaSai 8. 36. 
aTToXoyi'a 8, 28. 
anokvfiv 11. 54. 
anopia 6. 317 ; 10. I09. 
diroppoTj 9. I 3. 

cmoaTfpiiv 6. 117, 162, 253, 508, 949. 
anor^ipifrBai 6. 12? 
a7ro\j/r)(f>i(ecrdiii 6. 221. 
anpaToi 6. 41. 
airpfTTTjt 7. 180. 
'Apyfios 11. 52. 

apyiV"""' 6. 264, 283, 296, 341, 345. 
apiara 6. 2Io; 11. 231 .? 
*A[pi(rTo pjSrjfios 11. 223. 
'ApioTo^di";? 11. 174- 
'Apl<ppu>' 13. I. 
ApAcrtros- 11. I 48? 
'ApTa|«'p|i;s 10. 12 2. 
dp;(nio£ 12. 38. 
apxnv 11. 84. 
dp;)(^ 11. 122 ; 12. 12. 
d(rf/3€i>' 12. 23, 25 ? 
do-flfvuif 7. 82. 
*Ao-i'a 8. 99. 
d<T7ris 6. 20, 66. 
'Atro-r)[ 11. 247. 
arfici/os 11. 90. 
aTipd^fiif 10. 20. 
arpoiTos 11, 62. 

airo's 6. 8, 85, 90, I48, 169, 182, 19I, 202, 
227, 232, [268], [272], 294-5, 299, 326, 

379. 503?. 532' 534, 536; 7. 20, 26, 61, 
99, 103, 192, 206, 394: 8. 79, 82; 10. 
9, 74, 85, 96, 100, 116?, 123; 11. 59, 61, 
_ 65, 76, 79, 128, 149; 12. 13, 23, 27. 

avToi 10. 49 .' 
atpatpf'iv 6. 10; 12. 30. 
dcfiafi^fii' 6. 32. 
d<pr)yu(T6(ii 11. 161. 
ucpmnos 8. II, 15. 
a(j)piiiit 6. 360. 
'Axappeis 6. 89. 
"Ai/'ai/Spos 13. I I. 
drl/lpa^ia 7. 26. 

SaKxm 11. 35. 
^apliaptKOi 10. 7-' 
/3a<riXfia 10. 124 ; 11. 40. 

i^atrCKiviiv 11. 44. 

fia<n\(m 10. 51, 87, I32; 11. 50, 69. 

liifiaios (/3f(3aioOf ?) 6. 493, 602. 

iSfXTiMv 6. 132, 141, 148, 204. 

fiia 6. 227. 

/^'Of 6. 353- 

jiopews 11. 123, 126. 

^oi\ea-em 6. I38, 441; 10. 33, 12,3?; 12. 

10, 22. 
0ov\ii((i6ia 6. 498 ^ 
liovs, 6 6. 336. 
^paxis 10. 135. 
Bufdmov 10. 41. 

r'P 6- 17. H3?. 122, 152, 157, 183, 242, 
329, 538, 553, 595 ; V- 19. 42, 63, 73, 98, 
187, 224, 228; 8. 21, 40, 151 ; 9. 10; 
[10.50.?]; 11. 46, [51], 55, 58, 84, 166, 
239- 389; 12. 12, 28, 35. 

yt 7. 59, 162; 8. 42, 100.?; 11. 190. 

r€'(Tas) 5. 35 marg. 

yifpvpa 10. IT.' 

ynQ. 43; 11. 81. 

yiyvfireaL 6. [156], 205, 262, 359, 378 ; 7- 25, 

63; 8. 2?, 10; 10. 30, 96; 11. 69, 90. 
yiyvuMTKeiv 6. 535 ', 8. 82. 
yofevs 8. 2, 5, 45, 50. 
yvKj) 11. 146. 

bnpd<TLTvno<i 11. 164. 
havel^fcrBai 6. 32O, 327, 444. 

^' 6. [7], 13. 41, 47> 85, 116, 143, 155, 

[163], 175, 181, 186, 189, [216], 224, 
246, 251-2, 255, 257, 261, 266, 295, 319, 

324-5. 336. 494, 505. 558; 7. [72], 80, 
84, 186, 288, 455; 8. 7, 34, 37. 49, 57 ; 
9. 9, 14, 31-2, [34], 37; 10. 8, [12], 16, 
[32], 38, 70. 74, 106, 125, [237], 249.^• 
11- 34-5, 56, 75, 86, 92, 107, 109, 111, 
127-8, 137, 151, [175], 213, 215, 223, 
229, 232, 247, 276, 280; 12. I, II, 
18, 30. 

fifSiwf 10. 126.' 

8e'iv 6. 249, 361 ; [7. 100]; 9. 14; 12. 17. 

&eiv6i 6. 113.', 422 .? 

hfiaBai 6. 143, 219, 318, 335. 

A(K(\eia 6. 186. 

iiuTToira [7. 102.] 

Sfvrepos 11. 39, (figure) 329. 

8^ 6. 417 ; 7. 102 ; 8. 48 ; 10. loi. 



SrjXos 6. 152, 193, 80;, ; H. 32. 
fiijXoi'i' 7- 24. 

ATjfJLrjTTJp 12. 25. 
ATJ^OKfitTOS 9. l'^. 

8^/ior [6. 217.] 

8<a 6. 56?. 203, 239; 8.28; 10. [16 ?J, 2 1, 

108: 11. 86, 88, 96. 
fiia^dWeadat 8. 5 I .' 
Stn/iJoXij 7. 211. 
Smyni'nKTfri' 6. 84. 
SinyCfT^ai 6. 5.^9- 
&iuKflcr6m 7. 82. 
6iai«)(rim 5. 32 ; 10. 66. 
SinXtyftrftll 7. 97- 

SiiiXi^m' 6. 333, 560 ; 11. 128. 

StaTTOpfh' 11. 166. 

diaiTpaTTfaOaL 8. 25. 

8iappr}&r]v 7. I 28. 

SiciTsXt'iV 10. 93. 

oiartdevai 6. 242 .^ 

&ta<pepf<T6ai 7. 23, 62, I OO. 

Sinipefipfiv T. 194; 10. 73. 

dia(j>opu 6. 262 ; 8. 42. 

^iSorai 5. 37; 6. 25?, 228, 248, 252, 271, 

273. 474; 7- 107 •; 10. 213. 

biSvpos 11. 92. 

8«aff... 6. 17, 254, 871 ; 7. 159- 

SiVdlof 6. 553 ? 8iKaiornTO$ 10. 2 8 .'' SiKiiiaf 

6. I 18, 506, 536. SiKawrepov 6. 13O. 
8tKm[ 6. 416, 495. 
SlKlKTrijpiov 11. 226. 

8«f.(rT^t e. 77, 114. 221, 369, 378, 384, 

859; 7. 222. 
Biicrj 6. 103 ?, 184, 248. 
Aion'oin 6. 330. 

bwpVTTflf 7. 14, 23, 30, 40, 92. 

Aioi^mnos 7. 285. 

SoKfh' 6. 144, 479.?. 510 ; 8. 7, 13; 9. 9. 

SoXi^fos 10. 134 ? 

Sufi 12. 31. 

66pv 11. 41, 45, 48, 84. 

Bpaxpv 6. 23, 167, 332; (symbol) 9. .-ji, 

[37-8 J. 
Hiuu 6. 250, 355. 

Svvapli 6. 348. 

SivanBiti 6. 16, 34, 538 ; 11. 51, 85. 

8vo 6. 169, 297, 440; 11. 31, 116. 

fitCTTl'XfCTf/JOt 6. 226. 

Sv<TTv)(ia 6. I 58. 
Saptii 6. 172. 

I'dv 6. 47.'; 7. 161 ; 11. 94; 12. 32. 

iavToi (aiiToi) 6. 1 6, 80, 1 68, I 7 7, 345, 358 ; 
8. 5, 4r>- 

l^hopr)KovTii 6. 30. 

(li&opos (figure) 11. 232. 

(yyovo^ 11, I 46. 

(yi>G. 256, 260, 269, 296, 315?, 335?, 337, 

419, 442, 495. 510; 8. 13, 49. [82]; 11. 

90; [12. 32]. ripfh 6. 261; 11. 30?; 

12. 13. 
(6(\€iv 6. 552 ; 12. 28. 

tdvOS, ['Efil'COl'] KTlVftJ 11. 213. 

ft 6. [115], 123, 224, 226, 230, 250, 296, 
301- 351. 355. 494,502; 7- [73J. 187, 
^ 194; 8. 57; 11. 190; 12. 22. 

eiVds6. 252, 322, 344. 

umi 6. [114], 124, 141, 145, 149, 154, 168, 
174, 194, 201, 244, 246, 251, 256, 277, 
284, 327?, 337, 344, 356, 426, 480, 
562 ; 7. 18, 54, 72, 221, 236, 341, 465 ; 
8. 9. 49. 53. 57 ; 9- 32 ; 10. 5, 59, 87, 93, 
100; 11. 31, 43, 58, 75, 83, 96, 147, 
170, 188 ; 12. 15, 17. 

(imp 10. 33. 

A 5. 31; 6. 93?, 165, [234], 260, [330], 
346, 354, 489; 7. 284; 8. 42; 9. 13; 

10. 6 ; 11. 224, 226. 

(If 7. 191 ; [10. 238.] 

ftcra-yctf 11. 227. 
(Icrtivcu 6. 234. 
(Ira 6. 201 ? 
fluidevai 7. 95. 

€K, e$ 6. 186, 285; 7. 194 ; 10. 41, 58 ; 11. 
59, 60; 12. 12. 

exao-Tof 6. 476 ; 9. 19. 

iKOTOV 10. 74' 

iKyovos {^(yyofos IT) 11. I 46. 
(Kdiiiovai 10. 34 ^ 

iKel 9. 9 ; 10. 103. 

(Kflvos 6. 63.', 704 ; 7. 27, 45, 68, 80, 228, 
396; 8. 36; 9. 10; 10. 18, 21, 31, 194.='; 

11. 59, 79; 12. 18-19. Cf. Kfhoi. 
cKftae 12. 27. 

eVirXeiv 5. 47 ? ) 10. 40. 
iKTlOeaBm 11. I 48. 
(KTiPeiv 6. 249, 300. 

iKTLfTl<i 6. 490. 

iK<^fvyiiv 6. 7* 



"EXaros- 11. 5y. 

(Xu^icTTos 6. 157. 

e'Afi>^f[p 7. 344. 

'EXfDCTii'm 12. 21. 

'EXXfiintoE 11. 2 12. 

'EXXas- 10. 59. 

"EXXi;«f 8. 127 ; 10. 24, 108, 192. 

cXttij 6. 198. 

eVo't 6. 258, 322. 

'E/jn"ffio<X^ff 9. 17. 

iv6. II, 120, [370]; 9. 13; 10. [88], 105; 
11- 34> 361 39. [73]. 87, 103, 114, 120-1, 
129, 213, [219], 229, 232, 280, [302]. 

fl'aVTlos 6. 274, .534. 

iveKa 7. 71* fvfKiV 7. 17* 98. 

eVftiSe 12. 26. 

ii>T(v6(ii 6. 343. 

(^ai<pvijS 6. 351 ; 10. III.' 

(tfTciOw [6. 343]; 7. 223. 

c$ns 11. 147. 

f^ovuiii 7. 45» 

firaii'uv 8. 26. 

fVfi [6. 163.] 

(W6,} 6. 13, 34, 155; 7. 419. 

(TTdTa 11. 58, 72. 

f'n-1 6. 82, 146, 184, 188, 199, 337, ,^08; 

7. 29, 50 ; 9. lo-i I ; 10. 43 ; 11. 286. 
imhsiKvvvai 6. 348. 

(TTtKOVpOi [6. I 64. J 

'EniKovpos 9. 16. 
(■mp.iV(iv 6. 156. 

imTTlTTTflV 10. III? 

eViTrXfu' 6. 3 7-* 

fVio-ToX?) 7. 289, 337. 

iTTtTl)()€loS 6. 658. 
fTTiTiBivM 10. 144 ■'' ; 11. 82. 
fTTLTpenftV 6. 135; 35°' 
eTTlTpoTTl] 6. 267. 

eTTLTponos 6. 244. 

(iTnvy\ttvfiv 8. .52 ? 

c'pydffiT^ai 6. 207, 719.' 

epyoK 5. 31 ; 10. 17. 

f/jeli/ 6. 224, 329; 7. Cfi-7 ; 9. 14; 10. 56; 

12. 34. 
'Ep^^r 11. I 26. 
"Eppimros 11. I 19. 
f'pvdpos 11. 235. 
(pXcrdtu 6. 60, 347. 

fVxarof 6. 346; 11. 245. 

fVarpof 6. 246, 257. 

(TfposG. 297-8, 302, 313, 322. 327, 338; 

7. 233 .? 

fVof 6. 440; 13. passim. 

evdaip.oi>(lt' 6. 153' 

€vd(upnvifrT€pos 6. 229. 

fv(py(iria 6. I 78, 2 I 7. 

€i'f/)y[(_ 10. 255. 

evXalieladal 8. 47. 

(i'vovxoi [10. 130.] 

i^vptTTtdrji 11, 87. 

ivpliTKdv 6. 83; 8. 48; 12. 12. 

(v(Tfii!js 12. 6. 

evTV)(ia 6. 200. 

(vfprjpe'iv 8. 6, 

fu;^ecr^(U 11. 147. 

e<f>o8os 10. 96. 

icpoppav 11. 78. 

eV't- 6. 41, 198, 232, 297, 504, 553; 7. 44, 

59, 177, 221 ; 8.79, [83]; 9. 31?, [37]; 
10. 44 ; 11. 63 ; 12. 5. 
h^pa 7. 71; 8. 43. 

(x6pos 6. [190], 258, 320, 349, 359. 

eut 6. [10], 152. 

Zeis 5. 33; 7. 108, 216 ; 11. 76, [163]. 
fijXdTD7r[ot 5. 29. ^riKoTvircot 8. 83. 
f';i' 10. 106. 
f'/Tfa' 11. 94. 
fw-ypfii' 10. 75. 

n 6. [196], 228, 298-9, [360], 362 ; 7. 65, 68; 

8. 10, 12 ; 9. 16-17 ; 11- 67, 170. [246]. 
riye'tcrdai 6. 276, 506. 

fjyepoi'ia 10. 26 .', 34 .'' 
fjSij 6. 982 ; 11. 125. 
1760W) 11. 246. 
'HViii' 10. 43. 

rjKfw 6. 13 .' ; 8. 41. 

'HXelor e. 168. 
ijXiKi'n 6. 204. 

^"X.ot 6. 250, 355. 
'Wpa 6. 33, 93 .' 
ijfiirepos 6. 142. 

ijpicrvs 6. 78, 822; (s)'mbol) 9. 36. 
nv ('I said') 8. 37, 49. 

rJT!(ipOS 10. 95- 

'HpoKKijs 11. 123. 
fjcn\La 7. 248. 



BdvaTiis 11. I 50. 
6iii>CT(iv 11. 141. 

OffiiaroKXris 8. 3. 38, 84-,"; ; 10. 7. 
SeoSiKTrji 11. 280 ? 

Bfoforifiijt ((^fnSor.Si/s n) 6. 249, 30O. 
eed^irT/trros (rt) 6. 240, 247, 255. 34: 
{/i) 7. 219. 

fl€ot 11. 89, 95. 5f<"' 11. 74? : 12. 39- 

dtpdiraiva 6. 238 ; 7. 60, 96, 472. 
OfaTTifii 13. 2. 
dijaavfu'is 6- 8 I . 
Goi'«u5i(Vjy 11. 115* 

BpUKfS- 11. 22 1. 
6pacris 7. 64. 
Spaaoividrjt 5. 25. 
fliJfii' [11. 74.] 

lajTfTos 11. I 20. 
tSios 7. 70. 
iVpfw 12. 73, 81 ? 
Upos 11. 59. 
]l€(T5<;t 7. i8i. 
tra [6. 144 ] 
inrrtKot 8. 1 2. 

'iTrnoPip^,,! 6. 74?, 137, 147. 237- 
OTI^n^[ 11. 346. 

'llTTrop-itlji 13. 9. 

in-TTOs 11. 124, 127. 

tiTTui'ai 7. 241 ; 11. 72. 

icTTOpia 11. 54. 
iV^ws 11. 63. 
<Vxi{ 6. 886. 
laws 11. 84. 
"Icur 11. 121, 277 .=■ 

ici^aipfiv 6. 197. 

Kadd^fp 7. 95. 336 ? ; 11- 45- 49' '67. 

KaSiaTi'mu 8. 46; 12. 1 5. 

KaduSos 6. 165. 

(cai. K =^ Kai 11. 216. K(ii 70/1 7. li 

12. I 2. Kai p!]V 7. 58. 
Kati'fiJs 11. 41, 46-7, 55, 85. 
Knivi] 11. 56. 
Kainep 11. I 7 !• 
Km<r<ip 12. 9, II. 24, 32. 
KaiVoi 6. I 18, 32 I. 

KrtKOS 5. 17. 

KiAe'iv 6. 483 ; 10. 57 ; 11. 107. 

Ka\m 5. 27, 50 ; 7. 220 ; 8. 34 ; 12. 13. 

}^ap)(_T]^iiiV 6. 370. 

TOTti 7. 81, 171, 192 ; 9. 16 ; 11. So, 122. 

KaTiiytiv 6. I 90- 

(CarayiyctofrKetr 7. 160. 

KaTahlKa^iiv 7. 2 15- 

KfiraKOi^torrys" 10. 131* 

KdTciAcorrrfti^ 11. 79. 

KaTaAc'-yeif 11. 53- 

Knr«A€t7rf/i' 10. I02. 

Karao'/CfiKifei!' 6. 268 ; 7. 397- 

KaTa<ppnv€'iv 6. 419; 7- 109. 

KaTa(pvyTi 10. 230 ? 

KaTfTrft'yfCT^at 7. 3*^- 43* 

KaTfpxf'Tfm 6. 12, 38, 42, 4-,, 115, 175. 

KaTf;^fii> 10. 123 ? 

KaTrjynpia 7. 224. 

KdTtmTpi^fW 9. 19. 

KiiTtmrpov 9. 10. 

itfii'of 11. 9 1 . 

KfXfi'd^ 6. 38, 235 ; 7. 21, 214; [11. 74.] 

Kiinavpoi 11. 71, 78. 
KfVTfiv 11. 66. 
Kribf(TTr]S 7. 217. 
Kifiwj^ 10. 38, [62]. 

Klvdvi'€V€lV XO. 71. 

kMvi'us 6. 346 ; 7. 72. 
KXfi'^tKOff (KXeofiiKOff ni 13. 8. 
(cX.vffi" 11. 162 ;l. 
/cAjjpos 6. 487, 491. 
KouXepos 11. 107. 
''o'VX'; 9- 3°- 

K0tl'03Vi'iS 6. 379. 

KOplCeadal 6. 1 6.', 43, I 73. 
Kopifdos 11. 88. 

K^rtTfly 11. 47. 

Kpn-rlnoi 11. 36. 
Kpia-is [6. 139.] 
KpiTt']! ll. 32. 
KpiTwi' 7. 220. 
KTciadiu 6. 44. 

KTitTli 11. 214. 

Kvadoi 9. 27-8, 33-4. 
Ki'n-pos [10. 65.] 
Ku/jteueti' 7. 85. 
Kvpwi 7. I I 9 ■■' 

AaxcSat/xwtoi 8. 1 03. 

'Kap.jii'wfw 6. 79, 227, 298, [302], 339; 11. 
I \apiTpnKKr]i 11. 170. I7-- 
I .\a7Ti6cu 11. 70. 



Xiytiv 6. 30?, 41?, 43-4; 6. 79, 131, 182, 
340; 7. 47. 95. J9.]- 29°. 336?; 8. 4, 
[84]; 10. 7: 11. 37, 39, 55. 89, [120], 
122, 175, 240 : 12. 10, 17. 

'KeiTovpytlv 7. 20. 

AfaiKparrjs 13. I O. 

\6yos 7. 3 3,^5 . 

\oy)^o(f}6ii()S 10. 120 ? 

Xoin-ot 6. 146, 149. 

.\VKl[ 11. 251. 
.\l'KVfll)ST]s 10. ")0. 

AvK6(j)j)av 7. 28, 106, 160, 287. 

AnTTfll' 6. I 76. 

Al;m'af 6. 36, 79, I36, 150, 211, 2 1 6 ?, 222. 
Avamnns 11. 34, 301. 

fia6r)Ti]s 11. 172.'' 

/idXtora 11. 67. 

papTvpelv 6. 371* 

pafiTvpia 7. 217. 

^dprvf 6. 253, 272, 367, 374, 376, 380, 436, 

[438], 477. 700-1. 828, 850. 
peyas 6. 328 ; 8. 78 ; 9. 29, 30, 33 ; 10. 25, 

269?: 11. 138, 164. peyiarns 6. 2 18; 8. 

44; 10. 23; 11. 63. 
psOliVai 11. 2 2 2. 
pu^is 11. 95. 
pfioiv 6. 194 ? 
MfXjia-ias (a) 11. I of) ; (/j) 11. 117. 

ptWcLV 7. 85. 

pepvtjadaL 6. 2 2 2. 

MfVdiv 11. 114. 
pt'pos 6. 157 ; 9. 3-,. 
p(Td 6. 18, 3'';— 0, 7() 
12. 4, 7 ? ' 

^€Tai)([xi(}t' 11. 219? 
fieTafxeXTjcrai/ 6. 203. 

fitTOtKOS 6, I 54. 

fxrj 6. 124, 225 

. O ». . rr 00 

187, 206; 10. 42 

rolKOS D, 1 j^4. 

6. 124, 225, 230. 243, 251, 296, 311, 
487 ; 7. 88. 163, 222, 4:15; 10. 126. 

pr,S( 7. 447- 

prjSdi 6. 545; 7. 43. 

prjKiTi 7. 31. 

M" 7- 5*5- 
ptjuCeiv 6. 319. 

Mi'So..' [11. 173 ?J 
MidpiSdrrji 10. I30. 
piKpos 9. 34. Ct. ptiai'. 
MiXruiSi/s 10. 39. 
pirry ff70m 11. 57. 
pirrSoi 6. 332 .'' 
fjra 6. 248 ; 9. 36. 
.Mi/,i(rt'ai- 11. I 28. 

/xdi'or 10. 137 ; 12. 20. poi'ov 6. 230, 243; 
277. 536; 7. 163 ; 11. 197. 

poVfTlKOS 8. I O. 

Ml' (Tins 15. 699. 

val 5. 45. 
N(i|^ioi 11. 219 .' 
vavpa^lu 10. 10, 13. 

I'm"? 6. 369. 387 ; 10. 73, 98, 267 ? 

If Of 12. I. 

vi) Am 5. p,;]; 7. loS, 216. 

vrjiTos 10. 46. 
SiKaevs 12. I 4. 
SlKoarpiiTin; Q. 17. 

i'iip!(fif 8. 49 ; 10. 94. 

vupos 6. I 28. 

vw 5. 30 ; 6. iSi ; 7. 80; 11. 30: 12. 34. 

mvi 6. 13, 194, 233, 257, 804. 
fi'l 10. 105, 115 .' 

S(i'o»([Xi)s] 6. 1 8. 

$evoi 6. 168; 11. 236. 

O, TU (IS TUV 'l'ipuUH> 9. 13* — f"^ ^**^' ^' 25*3. 

oySoof 9. 3.5. 
oSo's 11. I 27. 
05D(T(r6i'? 11. 272. 
^6(v 7. 28 ; [10. 36.] 
ol'fo-ftu 6. 193 ; 8. 37 : 12. 69 .' 
oiKfias 6. ,537* 
oiVi'ii 6. 44 ; 7. fj7, 84. 

oiKO<^np€tv 6. 195- 

orot 6. 430; 9. 15 ; 10. 26. onit TTfp 8. 3. 

o?;(€(r^ai 6. II, 36, 61, 163, 18,^. 

oKimv 6. 317, 335. 

(jXiyof 6. 361 ; 11. 166. 

"OXopiii 11. I I O. 

oXos 7. 224 ; 11. 149. 

'OXvpnia 7. 284. 

I'lpiXia 7. 16. 

upoioi 6. 198. I'ipvlaii 7. 33 11. 35. 



oiiiAuye'iv 6. 95, 685 : 7. 18C. 

Ofi<j>ii\ti 11. 121. 
uvrtSi(eii' 6. 180. 

OTTOIOC 12. 16. 

nmhepos 6. I 38, I 40. 

Snov 10. 109. 

on-Mt 7- 247. 

opa^e. 266; 7. Si ; 9. I I -1 2; 10. 197: 11. 76. 

dpy^ 6. 870. 

opyi'ff o-^n< I 6. 119.] 

'Opea-rrji 11. 280. 

op6cni (opfws n) 11. 80. 

oppuirdai 6. 186. 

opoi- 11. 124. 

Ss 5. 30; 6. 31, [45], 184. 207, 233, (536); 

7. 90, 184?, 220, 334; 8. 46; 10. [9], 

25, 46. 120 ; 12. n. Cf. ov. 
OS. 5 6' 5s 8. 37. 
oo-iof 12. 7. 

oo-os 6. 234; 10. 58 : 11. 184. 
oanep 7. 79. 

o<TTis 6. 3,57, 360. .^63 ; 7. 21 ; 8. 42. 
oaTidoiv 6. 260. Cf. iiiSoTtni/t'. 
oTf 6. 271. 329 ; 7. 230; 11. 65. 
oTi 6. 149, 194, 481 ; 7. 24; 8. 83; 10. 8, 

[33]; 11.38, loi, [115]; [12.30.] 
ov, oiK, oix 5. 28, 40 ; 6. 83, 325, 378, 501, 

504, 552-3. 603; 7. 40; 8. 37; 9. 9, 

14: 11. 45. .-;o, 58, loi, 166, 197, 239.?; 

12. 5. 12, 17. 28, 30. 

ov 10. 10 I. 

oiiyKia (symbol) 9. 37. 

ovhaputs 7. 17. 

o£8c' 6. 14, [157I, 172, 19S. 203, 264, 294, 

919; [12.6.?] 
oi'Sfi'f 6. [123], 171, 175; 7. 4^5 : 11- 60; 

12. 29, 37. 
ovSeVoTe 7. 54, 56, 112. 
ouSejroJTToTC 6. 202. 

ov8eT(pos 7. 1 1.5 ; 8. 20. 

ovSoTiovi' 8. 2 2. 
nvKtTi 5. 24. 

OVKOVV 7. 91. 

oiiKoiiv 8. 15. 

oZv 6. 220, 475, 493; 7. 212, 341 : 8. 82; 

9. 33. 6" ovv le. 18. piv uvv 6. 149?, 
338; 9. 12; 11. 112. 
oiicrla 6. [9], 29, 245, 268. 

oii( 6. 32. 43-4, 177, 179, 263; 7. 18, 24, 
92, 94, 237, 239; 8. 21, 27; 11. 59, 60. 

nvTOsQ. 5, 32,43, 76, 81, 135, 140, 144, 171, 

223, 225, 229, 259, [261 |, 340, 354 383, 
489. 555. 55«. 596?. 848; 7. 14, 56. 62. 
65. 67. 69, 79, 83, 89, 93. 99, 125, 214, 
230; 8.53: 9.13; 11.42, 69. [73], 76,83, 
86, [io8|, ir8, 167,225; 12.2,3.9.37?. 
71. oiV^f) 5. 39 ; 6.242,349,357.360. 
4rS; 7. 63; 8. 48 ; H- 33> 5^, 115. 124, 
165, 302. 

nvxL 11. 48. 
u(p0a\p6s 7. 86. 

TTUl^apini' 8. 4O. 

TraififufU' 11. I I 8. 

nai^KTKij Q. 492. 

T.iui 5. 2.S .? : 11. -^9, 163. 

TTuXii' 6. 368. 

UaXXiif 11. 162. I 176]. 

iTnvTf\oii 6. 1 ,5 I ? 

TTupa 6. 79, 173, 216, 296, 298, 302, 31.5, 

318, 327, l338|, 537; 7. 45, 47. 65-8, 
2 0,r, ; 10. 210; 11. 38, 87; 12. 19, 20. 

7rnpn[ 6. 2 1, 532 ; 10. 211. 
TTupahnyjui 12. 33. 
7Tapa6a\i'nTitt^ 10. .56. 
TTiipakap'iaviiv 6. 9I. 
napuvopa 6. 4,58 ? 
TTapaTTOiflp 11. 165?. 175. 
napa(Ttai7T(ii' 7. 69. 
■iTcipaiTK(va(eii' 6. 358. 
TrapdTi'ta-treitf 10. 69. 
vnpii^pjfpii 10. 60. 
TTapflvat, 5. 22 ? 
■napeKlialveiv 10. 3". 
TTap€pyaii 7. 223. 
TTiipfxfU' 6. 166, 170, 464. 
7ra/j^eVof 11. 93. 
JJdpioi 11. 226. 
TvapuTTavai 6. 473.'* 
■napoiptov 11. 243 .' 
•napniveiv 7. 4 I "J .'* 
Ilupni 11. 224 .' 

7r«f 6. 193, 241, [299.?] ; 7. 21, 421. 
TTiio-xeii' 6. 351, 354; 7. 88. 
llaTap(v^ 11. 129. 
7r<iri)p 8. 39; 11. 108, 113. 
■nixTpiiii 6. 508. 
niiTpis 6. 188. 

TTfiBdv 6. 169, 257 ; 12. 33. 
TleipmfV'i 6. 1 I. 




167, 215?, 225, 

Ufkacryoi 10. 228. 

U(\oy\r 11. 125. 

TTfiinuv [6. 165]; 7. 289. 

TTt^TTTOS 11. 152. 

;rfr'6«[ 11. I 39. 

jrf'iTe 11. 35. 

nevTiiKovTa 6. 22 ; 10. 66. 

TTfp. 0109 TTff) 8- 3. 

wfpi 6. 140-1, 177, 179, 182, 230, 233. 
334, 336, 352. 649 ; 7. 401, 451 ; 8. [i]. 
4; 9. 12; 10. 6, 10, 12, 64; 11. 40-1, 

55, [103], 112. ['so] 
248, [281]. 

TTfpidvai 9. 2 1. 

Tifplfpyos 6. 276. 

TTepiifntwai 6. 947 ^ 

■nipiopiiv 6. 345* 

TKpini-nTftv 10, 107- 

nepCToi 10. 44, [64]. 

TrfpffeVoXis 11. 162, 176. 

jripvai 6. 690 .' 

TTfTpt] 11. 81. 

TTi^arcif 7. 18, 94, 173, 236. 

7rtiTpa(TK€ii' 6. 40. 

■nicTTts 6. 472? 

nXiirmi' 11. 113. 

7T\ri6os 8. 37' 

TvXrjCTl 6. 823. 

jrXoDO-iMTaros 6. 153, |25- 

nXoOroi 11. 36. 

nod(v 7. 41. 

noieii' 6. 64, 19 

!i9, 275.', 287, 442: 7. 

10. 07. 

49, 392 ; 11. 61, 77; 12. 8, 14. 

TTOtTJTl'jS 11. 119, 

TToAf^aSoKos 11. 162 a. 
Ilo\€nap\os [6. 8, J 

7To\ep.fLV 11. 7 I  

TToKtpios 6. 187, 503 

noXf'juwi' [11. 102.] 

TrdXir 6. 142, 189 ; 7. 287 

2/, [57]. 

7roXiV);£ 6. 191, 20 

TToXlJf 6. 33, 7' 

86 ; 10. 70- 
6. 470. 

TTOppw 8. 40. 

Iloffet^e'wv 11. 
TTori e. S5S ; 
troTfpop 8. 7, 

8. .58 ; 10. 1 9, 

[162], 206, 265, 544; 7. 
loi, 106; 11.49. '^'^f'"'' 

57, 61. 

10. 2 ; 11. 169. 

11; 11. 168. 

■nptiypu 6. 139, 286, 433; 10. 126? 

7rpa|ii 6. 851 ; 10. 22, 194. 

npuTTlw e. 137, 231, 259; 7. 230, 242. 

7rpui(T&ai 6. 51 ^• 

wpiV 6. 250, 261, 

TTpti 6. 256 ; 7. 86. 

7rpo«yyeAXfii' 10. 12. 

Trpoaipftadai 7. 405 .^ 

TTiJnjjKeii' 6. 354- 

TTpo6vputy6in 6. 145. 

npodiif-iios 7. 2 2. 

npoKuaSai 11. 96. 

TT^of 6. 86, 237, [241], 338, [389], 457, 
460, .563; 7. 15, (19), 25, 61, 69, [98J, 
[209], 394; 8. 45, [83]; 10. 31, 50, 67, 
98, 129 ; 11. 51 .' 

7rpO(T€vp((adai 5. 38. 

TTpoai'jKiwTn 6. 148? 

TVpOITI'tfidl' 11. I 73- 

7rpo(T(p€ij((r6aL 7. I03- 

■npiWepnv 7. 19; 8. 10. 14. 

TTpmrtOf frdat 7. 7*' •'^ 

npo^apos 7. 71 

TTpuiToi 12. 15. TTpaTiw 6. 121 ; 11. 265. 

riToXt^ntof 11. 370-^ 

jTni'ftii'fo-^m [10. 62.] 
■nipW. 195, 306. 
ffi'po-df 10. 116.'' 
■niakeiv 6. I 9, I 23. 
7ra>770Tf 6. 175. 

Ti-if 5. 41; 6. 321, 344, 538; 7. 173; 
11. 94. 

pijpu 5. 42. 

cratpris 5. 49 ? 
O'fai'ToO 8. 2. 
(jipvvvnx' 12. 9. 
CT'Im" 11. 82. 
a-iSripos 11. 66. 
trKtjvi) 10. 88. 

(TKYlTlTpOV 11. .^.(, 48. 

o-KoTTeit/ 6. 384. 

iKi'pilS 10. 46. 

o-of^wTaro? 10. 27.^ 
o"7rfi''6eir 7. 2 38 .' 
CTTOiM^a^eii' 10. 15. 
2T6'(/>ni'Of 11. 106, 112, 117. 
(TTfCpami'i' 7. 286. 
2Ti]al)(opos U. 169. 
o^rdXor 10. 64. 



OT^OTfl'd 6. 574' 

tjTpaTfiuv Q. 189; 11. 248. 
tTTpaTijyui' 10. 39. 
OT^aTi/ydi- 10. 85. 

fTTpUTllOTtJS 10. 114? 

<TTpaT[ 10. 1,36. 

2TpVfia>v 10. 44. 

(Tvyyvoipjj 6. 231. 

fTvyypacl)€vs 11. 109* 

fruyKfidOai 6. 94. 

o-ii/cor/iniTfii' 6. 3 .', 20,^ : 7- 33' ? 

(ri'A\«^^(ii'eii' 6. 28. 

(n);i3(iXX6ii' 6. 486 .^\os 10. 42. 

(ryfirrfWfii/ 10. 61. 

o-VfinoXireveaOiu 7. 2 10. 

(Tu 8. 8 ; 11. 146; 12. I. vp-us 6. 35, 134, 
143-4. 150. '5^. 173. -°7. 220, 228, 234, 
241, 328, 342, 371, 373 ?> 537. 554> 923 ; 
7. 159 ; 12. 34. 

avp<l>opd 6. 80, 121, 1,55, 200. 
(rvv€t^€vaL 6. 316 ? 
(rvvfKdidQvai 6. 323. 
trvpeijKTj 6. 39, 4,5, 127. 
(tvvoi[k 7. 1 1 8. 
ffuirafrafty 10. 6^, 
<T(f>dW€Lif [11. 50.1 
iT(j)68pa 6. 349, 419- 
o-;(€8ov 6. 241. 
2<i>KpaTr]S 8. 6, 93, 156. 
aipa 6. 352; 7. 32, 76? 
Smo-mSijf 6. 92 .', 737 .', 781 ? 

(TWCJipQlfc'lV 7. 162, 185. 

TtiXavToi/ 6. 30, I 70. 

rdfis 7. 60. 

rdxa 6. 47,5. 

Tf 6. [167], 259 ; 7. no; 10. 10. 

T€i;(OS 6. I9'v 

TfKpTjpLOV 6. .528 : 7. 2 12. 

TCKfOV 11. 93. 

TfXclK 12. II, 19, 26, 36. 

rf'Xtos 6. 201 ? 

TfXfTI] 12. 27. 
T€XfDT[ 6. 577. 

Tf'Xof 6. 170. 

TfT(,i,)Ti;) 9. 31. 
TfT/jaK(5(riot. 01 TfT. 6. 184. 
TfTTapaKovTa 10. 68 ; 11. 33. 
Ttrrnpfs 11. 31. 

T('a,s 7. 288. 

T>]\lKUVT(K 7. ,■53. 

tUthv 11. -Ji; (Tf/ffK), 92, 

Ti/xaioi- 9. 13. 

TW 6. 14, 78; 10. 23. 
Tipapiii 7. 89. 

Ti£ 5. 26.'; 6. 225, 228, (349), 357, 360, 
362, 417; 7. 63, 97-8.?, 105, 212; [10. 
16, 237]; 11. 146. 

"f 6- 351. 477, 494, 499, ''94; 7. 89, 187; 

10. 229; 11. 65, 84, 94. 

Tolvvi' 6. 34, 76, 301, 368, 377, 383. 

TO("0rof 6. 120, 174, 183, 505; 8. 28, 42-3, 

173; 9- 15; 12. 29." 
Tolxos 7. r,^, 30, 41, 93. 

TOTOf 6. 312, 314. 

Tn\piiii 6. 260, 432. 

TOTTOS 10. 13,5, 138. 

ToarovTOi 6. 347 ; 10. 16. 

T07-C 6. 197, 231 ; 10. 6 ; 11. 6.^ 

rovricTTi 8. 53. 

Tp(n(a-8in 10. I 10. 

Tp((()(iv 11. 116. 

TplaKOVTa 6. 247. 01 T/). 6. 82, 122, I 60. 

TpidKnawt 6, I 64. 

Tplrjpi,px[ 6. 724. 

Tpiros 11. 110.? 

Tpon-oj 6. 5°6- 

Ti,y;(ai'«ii' 6. 142,681; 10. 121, 178. 

■^"xn 6- 350. 

uio'f 11. [106], no, [116]. 

vpeTfpm 6. 37, 120, 15S, 192, 199, 510. 

V77€p 6. 238, .5.55; 7. 184, 333; 8. 35; 

11. 389. 

vTT€plio\rj 7. 81, 171 .^ 
iJTTepi'ipfpos 6. 251. 356. 
VTtixeiV 7. 90. 

uTi-de. [160], 182, 258, 313, [358]; 7. 412; 

8. 38; 10. 19, 23, 102; 11. [52], 89, 


mo\ttp^dvfi.v 7. Ill ; 10. 32, 99. 

V7TOpfV€lV 7. 2 2. 
VfTopipVT}tTKflV 10. 8. 

(paivtadm 5. 36 ; 6. 239 ; 9. 9. 

(I)avm 5. 45 ; 6. 302, 493-4 .''; 8. 6 ; 9. 18 ; 

11. no, 114, 276?, 281 ; 12. II. 
K^avtpoi 7. 330. 
*apo"dXioy 11. III. 



(i>a(TK€Lv 6. 298, 339, 440 ?, 

(paxiKoi 8. 35, 40, 56. 

^ipi.v 6. 86, 537. 

<I'f()ff8aTr;f 10. 86. 

4,(vy^iv 6. 35, 163, 174, 

10. 98. 

(piXws 10. 1 01. 
</)iXos 6. 256. 
(^iKofppoviuT^pov 7. 10 1 ? 
^d/:ios 10. I r2 ? 
Kppofelv 6. 195. 

<^pOITl[ 6. 546. 

'PpiviX"^ 11- 160, 171- 
cj>v\a^ 10. 104. 
(jioiuftf 6. 660. 

;^aXc7ra)j 6. 86. 
^(iXenoiTaTos 10. 30> 
;(aXKor 11. 67. 
Xa/iaiXfcijr 11. 168. 
XdpiTTTriis 7. 283. 
;^<ipK 6. 172. [216]. 
Sdpii-^ (xuios n) 13. 6. 
XiViioi 6. 331. 

466. 561, 703. 



X"p<iyf'" 6. 329. 

Xpei'a7. 27. 
XpeV.;s 7. .57 ? 
XP'l 6- 343- 

xpw" 6. 161, [167], 488; 11. 68. 

XpijaS"' 7. 213, 215. 
Xp(^("r) 11. 56 marg. 

XpT]<Tp.6s 11. I 30. 

XPI'^^'Ji 6. 145. 
Xpovns 10. 7^' 
xpo'i 6. 7C2- 
Xwpn 10. 214. 

^j,r,ct>l(ea-eai 6. 139, 235, 38S. 
^1<P[ 6. 791- 

2. 6. 77. [114], 220, [368 I, 377, 383, [859] ; 
7. 221 ; 8. 6, [50J. 

wuelaem 6. 15, 4O, 73, II9, I23 > 

U 6. 115, 117, 325, 369, [377], 659: 

7. 19. 339; 9- 17 ; 11- 43. 148- 

Mo-fffp 6. 81, 252 ; 12. 20, 24. 

(So-Tf 6. 193, 243, 355, 420; 7. 64, 463; 

8. 24, 51 : 10. 94 ; 11. 187? 



(77/f nnuibers refer to pages.) 

Abas 30, 38. 

abbreviaiions 22,95,97, 129- 

30, 147, 189. 
Academic school 94. 
Achaeus 146. 
Acrocorinthus 32. 
Acusilaus 127-8, 141-3. 
Aeschines 209-10. 
Aeschiiies Socraticus 88-90, 

Agatharchides iii, 142. 
Alcibiades 88-90. 
.Mcmaeon, archon 154. 
Alexandria 151. 
Alexandrian librarians 1 30- 1. 
Alexion 132. 
amnesty in 403 b. c, 50. 

{a) English and L.\tin. 

Anaschetus 78, 87. 
Andreas 109. 
Apollo 128, 143. 
ApoUodorus 90, 93. 
Arad 25. 
archons 154. 
Arctinus 128, 145-6. 
Argives 27, 30, 102. 
Aristarchus 1 29, 131. 
Aristides 151. 
Aristodemus loi, 107, 112. 

118-19, 122. 
Aristophanes 1 28-9, 146, 165. 
Aristophanes of Byzantium 

Artabanus 102, 112. 11 8, 


Artaxerxes 99, 102, 106, 

H8-19, 124-5. 
Asclepiades of Myrlea i 30. 
Athenians 107, 126. 
.\ugustus 1 50- 1. 

Bacchylides 27-9. 

Barbari Excerpta Latina 

Bellerophon 45. 

Bithynia 150-1. 

Boges 1 20. 

book-form in papyri 6, 8, 10, 

12, 15, 19, 21,155-6, 162, 

165, 168. 
Boreas 145. 
Bucolic poets 169. 


B)zantium 100, 120. 

Cadmus 31. 

Caeneus 127-8, 130-3, 142. 
Caesar-worsliip 148-51. 
Callisthenes 105, 107,122-3. 
Callislratus 132. 
Caria loo-i. 
Carthage 51. 
Cerberus 28, 31. 
Chamaeleon 129, 147. 
Charippus 75, 87. 
Charon of Lainpsacus 99. 
Cinion 99-102, 107-8. 110, 

112, 120-1, 126. 
Clidicus, archon 155. 
Clilarchus 105, 118. 
comedy 127, 130-2, 140-1. 
contractions i, 3, 7, 8, 10, 15, 

19, 22, 24-5. 
Corinth 27, 32, 45. 
Crantor 95. 
Craiea 46. 

Cratinus, WKovtoi 127, 141. 
Cratippus 105, 109, 112. 
critical marks 90, 129, 167, 

187, 190. 
Criton 78, 87. 
Ctesias 105, 112, 125. 
Cyprus 100, 102, 104, 106-7, 

112, 122. 

dactylo-epitritic metre 28, 

31-2. 41-3- 
Decelea 70. 
Demeter 149-50. 
Democritus 94-6. 
dialect, Doric 128, 143, 169, 

177-9; Ionic 95, 127-8, 

143, 181-2, 187-9. 
Didymus 129, 132, 148. 
digressions 107, i ro, 1 1 2-13, 

Dinon 99, 105, 118, 125. 
Dio Cassius 149-51. 
Diodorus 98-113, 118-25. 
Dionysius o fxovaiKus 132. 
Dionysus 27, 29-31, 39, 40. 
Dioxippus 75, 87. 
dithyrambs 27-9. 
drachmae 97. 

Eion 100, 107, 109, 1 12, 120. 

Eleusinian mysteries 149. 

emendations confirmed (i) 
Aescliines 209 ; (2) Her- 
mas 15; (3) Plato 200; 
(4) Theocritus 170; (5) 
Thucydides 191, 194. 

Empi-docles 94-6. 

Ephorus 99-102, 105-13, 

Epicurus 94-6. 

Eratosthenes 129-32, i4(). 

Euboea loo-i, 126. 

Eudorus 95. 

Euripides, 'aAk^/wi' <) hiU 
Kopifdov 128, 143 ; (J/t's/ci 

Eurymedon 100-2. 106, 

1 10-12, 122. 
Eusebius 154. 

festival at Olympus 31. 
Frontinus 10 1, 107, 1 12, i 22. 

Geta 45-6. 
Gorgons 30, 38-9. 

Harmonia 31, 44. 

Harpocration 48, 51. 73, 77. 
Hellanicus 129, 147. 
Helhvica Oxyrhymhia 109- 

Helots 102. 
Heracles 28, 40, 145. 
Heraclides 105, 107, 1x8. 
Hermas papyri 15. 
Hermippus, lapetiis 1 28, 

130. 145- 
I Heiodicus 132. 
, Herodotus 100, 109, 1 12-13. 
j 1 19-20, 181-2. 
hiatus 107, 120, 179. 210. 

I 213-15- 

Hippocrates 97. 

Hippolytus 19. 
I Hippotherses 48-50. 

homilies 21-5. 

homoioteleuton 7. 15, 18. 

horse-worship 151. 

Hyperides 75-8. 

Ion, Omphtilt- 12S-9. 145. 
Isocrates loS. 

Jerome 154. 

judges at contests 127. 141. 
Julius Caesar 150-1. 
Justin 102, 107. 109. 112, 
120, 124. 

Lamprocles 129, 131, 146-7. 

Lasus 27, 41-2. 

I.alin versions 2. 4, 6, 10-12, 


liquid measures 95, 9 7-8. 
loan, action concerning 51. 
logaoedic metre 28, 30. 
Lycia 129. 
Lycomedes 100, 121. 
Lycophron 75-7, 86. 
Lycurgus 75-6, loi. 
I.ysias 48-50. 
Lysippus, .5<7f(7/(^- 127,129, 

Lysiihides 1 18, 126. 

Manto 143. 

Marcellinus 128, 144-5. 
Men 151. 
Menander 45-6. 
metres 28, 30-3. 41-3. 
metrology 95, 97-8. 
Miltiades 108. 
mina 95, 98. 
minors 94-5. 
miscellanies 132. 
Mithridates 124-5. 
Mnaseas 128. 130-1. 145. 
Muses 30. 

Naxians 129. 
Nepos 118, 122. 
Nicaea 149-51. 
Nicomedia 150. 

Odysseus i 29. 
Oeniadae 199. 
Olympia 87. 
Olympus 31, 
Omphale 145. 
Orestes 147. 
Orthagoridae 109-13. 



Pallas, ode to 128-3,3. 

Pamphila 132. 

parents and children 89. 

Parians 129. 

Passion, the 19. 

Paul, epistles of St. 12. 

Pausanias 100. 

Pelasgians 100, 120-1, 126. 

Pelops 145. 

Pentecontaetia 98-113. 

Penthesiiea 128, 145-6. 

Perseus 30, 38-9. 

Persians 99-102, 105-6, 

Phanias 1 1 8. 
Phanodemus loi, 105. 
Pherendates 10 1, 106, 123. 
Pliorcys 30, 38. 
Phrynichus 129, 131, 146. 
Pindar, Dithyrambs 27-32; 

Olympian odes 155—7. 
Plato 88, 90, 94-5, 19Q-201. 
Plutarch 43, 89, 99, loo-i, 

105-7, i09> 112, 118, 

Polemarchus 49, 68. 
Polemon 128, 130-1, 144-5. 
Pollux 77. 
Polyaenus 102, 107, 1 1 1-12, 

Polybius 107. 
Poseidon 127. 
Ptolemaeus 129. 

ixdavaula 154- 
HKtiafiTTTfi 28, 45. 
dudKaii^avdv 86. 
avafivriiii(TK<j>v 70. 
avdvai 1 54. 
iiv(\fiv 161. 
dnfinaadm 76. 
dnoXf'Kv^eva 28, 3 1. 
<i<pfiK(i> 147- 

ypafi^aT^us 2 I 3. 

diayo^evos 74- 
Sta\(yf(T6(n 77- 
!ilopv}(ri 86. 

recensions, Tobit 1-6; Acts 
10 ; Plato 199-201 ; 
Thucydides 1 90. 

Rufus 133. 

sc/iema Pindaricuin 42. 
scholia on Pindar, Diili. 29; 

Aristophanes, Plutus 165, 

167-8; Herod, iii 180, 

Scyros 100, 106, 120, 126. 
Seleucus 132. 
Semele 31. 
Sicyon 109. 
sigma in lyrics 41-2. 
Simonides 27, 129. 
Socrates 88-90. 
speeches in Thucydides ii 

Stephanus son of Thucydides 

128, 144-5- 
Stesichorus 28, 129. 
Stobaeus 95, 200. 
Strabo 41-2, 131. 
Suidas 77, 130-2, 162-3. 
symbols 95, i 29, 
Syncellus 154. 

Thebans 27, 31. 
Theniistocles 88-9, 99, 

106-7, iio-ii, 118-20, 

Theocritus 169-70. 

{b) Greek. 

i'yyovos 145' 
lyevijdr] 76, 86. 
eSiKmeCxTo 1 8 2, 1 8 7. 
fiSmXii 94-6. 
tiaayye'KLa 75—6. 
fKKoKKdv 18. 
epKoi aX^ds- 39. 
tTt]pov(Tav 25. 
fvaiMTTV^ 28, 39- 


Kawr] 142. 
Kap.jSva-Tji' 1 8 
Ktipvov 98. 

KUTonTpi^QpfVtiiV 96 

Theodectes, Oresks 129, 147. 
Theomnestus (i) 48, 50-1, 

73; (2) 75-87. 
Theophilus 76. 
Theophrastus 127, 130, 141. 
Theo()ompus 105, 107-9, 

1 1 1-13, 122-3. 
Theozotides 51, 71, 73. 
Thersippus, archon 155. 
Theseus 100, 107, 121, 126. 
Thirty tyrants 49-50. 
Thracians 129. 
Thrasonides 45-6. 
Thucydides (i) the historian 

98-100, 102, 106-7, 109- 

13, 118-22, 128, 144-5. 

190-1, 194, 196-8; (2) 

the politician 128, 144-5; 

(3) the Pharsalian 128, 

Tithraustes 123. 
Tobit 1-4. 

vellum codices i, 23, 163, 
194, 197. 

women 25. 

Xenophon 113. 
Xerxes 99, 102, 106-7, ' 18- 
19, 126. 

Zeno of Citium 131. 

KiVTinr) 143* 
Kfpavvi'iv 23. 
Ki'/3SuXof 41. 
KonXe/:(o; I 44. 

«ow; 95> 97- 

KO')^i<ipiov 97. 
Kvados 97. 

XoytffTai 213. 

pf6(^(yiKai> 147- 
p€Tape\rj(Tat/ 7 I • 
Mvtria 6pxi]para I 63. 
pvtTTpop 98. 



01, oi 38. 

OTlTi'ivfaBtn 4. 

o'^X o" 3- 

irapavofioiv 73. 
TtapaaiioTrav 76. 
Jlarapevs 145' 
TTaT€[}(Ov 40. 

TTf ^HtOXTf tl/ 197- 

irXoKos 44—5- 

TToXfd 45. 

rrprixi'" 182. 
iri'iXiu 42. 

pt^aixi" 43- 

o-di/ 41-2. 
ordnrts 44. 
trinptKTa 132. 
(Tj^oii/oTtVeta 28, 41. 
aapa 'j6—*J. 

Ta7Tetvorl>pofTvvi] 19- 

TflCtl' 143. 

TfTiipTrj 97. 

TUTTnfOC 43. 

tpt'tfjiil (ff^Tt) 44. 
(pVVTd 25. 
(jiVOVTl 177- 
4»OpKOff 38. 

Xdp^a 45. 

XPW« 143- 
;(p^<rif 142. 


Acis xxvi. 7-8, 20 = 1597. 
Aeliaii, Var. liist. ii. i 2 . 
Aeschines /;/ Ctes. 14-27 = 1625. 
Aeschines Socrai. Fr. i Krauss = 
1608. 84 sqq. 
Fr. 2^=1608.8 2-4 
Frs. 3, 4 
Agatharchides, De marc Eryth. 7 
Anecd. Bekker p. 97 . 
Anecd. Oxoii. ii. 452 
Anecd. Parisiniaii de nntis 
Apollodorus iii. 7. 4, 7 
Aristides i. 325 Dindorf . 

ii. 292 . . 88- 

ii. 369 
Aristodemus 10 

II. 2 . 
Aristophanes, Clouds 967 = 1611. 176, 

Philus 1-56 = 1617 
Athenaeus v. 220 b . 
vi. 234 d . 
viii. 331 d, &c. 
X- 448 c, 455 b-c 
xi. 467 a . 
Bacchylides xiv 
Barbari Excerpla Latina (Sclionc 

Euseb. Chron. App. 6) . 
Catullus, Atys 9 . . . 
Censorinus 9 . 
Cicero, Brut. 204 

Horicns. Fr. 12. 
Ctesias Frs. 29-30 . 


88, 90 









I 22 













Deuteronomy xxviii. 66 = 1600. 


Dio Cass. Ii. 20 . . . . 149 

Iii. 36 . 

• "54 

Dio Clirys. xviii, p. 283 . 

. 108 

Diodorus iii. 12-48 . 

1 1 1 

V. I . 

107, no 

xi. 17 

. 119 

•9- 5 • 

. 119 

,30- 4-5 

102, 125 

54- 4 • 

. 127 

56.7 . 

. 126 

56.8 . 

. 118 

57- 3  

• 125 

57- 7 • 

. 126 

58. 4-59 

. Ill 

59- I • 


59. 2 . 99, 103, 119, 125-6 

59-3 99,102-3,119-20,125 

59. 4 . 99-100, 103, 120 

60.1-2 99-100,103,120,126 

60. 4 . . loi, 103, 121 

60. 5-6 . 100-3. 121-2 

61. 1-2 . . 123, 126 

61. 3 . loi, 103, 106, 123 

61.4-6 101-2, 104, 123-4 

62. I . . . .121 

62.3 . 

101-2, 122, 126 

637 • 


65. 4 . 



. 108 

69. I . 

102, 104, 124-5 

<>9- 3-4 



Diodorus xi. 71. i 
xiv. 9 
1 1 





99, 106, 118 

, lofi, 121-3 

. 108 



12 2 


6. 4-8. 3 

Exc. Vat. viii. 34 
Dionysius Halic, Dc comp. verb. 
Ecclesiasticus i. 1-9 = 1595. 
Ephesians vi, 12 
Ephorus Frs. 107, 109-10, 124 

115 . 

116 . . 10 
FHG iv. 642 

Euripides, C/wto 53-61, 89-97 = 1616 
Eusebius, Chron. i. 188 Schone 
Eustathius. Homer A 264 

'335- 52 • 
Frontinus, Slraicg. iv. 7. 45 

Genesis vi. i . 

Hebrews xi . • • 

Hermas, Sheplurd, Sim. viii 

= 1599. 
Herodian ii. 2 . 
Herodotus iii. 26-72 = 1619. 

vii. 107 . 

viii. 75, 1 10 . 

Hesycllius, nivTe Kpnai 

Homer .\ 264 . 

Y 221 sqq. . 
Horace, Odes iv. 2. 10 
Hosea iii. 3 . . 
H\'perides, Inep \vit64>povos 


Fr. 171 Blass . 
Inscriptions, Brit. Miis. G.I. 1004, 

C.I.A. ii. 804, 807 

O.G.I, r,^. 6 . 
Ion, Omphale Fr. 24 Nauck 
Isaiah liii. 7 






Jerome (Schone, Euseb. Chron. App. i b) 

loel i. 6. 8 

John vi. 8-22 = 1596. 

Justin iii. I . . . 

ix. 1 . 
Lucretius ii. 61 1 
Lycurgus, Contra Lcoeratem 7 
T.vsias xii. 17 . 

63 . . . 









21- 23 

77, 86-7 

074 25 


• 145 


21, 23 


12 2 




Lysias Fr. 122 Sauppe 

48, 69 



69. 73 

31° , _ •  

51, 73 

7re/Ji raif tSicui' fvepyfirnoit 


Marcellinus, TV/. T/iuc. 16-17 . 




Menander, Mio-oij^ifi/of 26 . 

• 47 

Fr. 1 1 Koerte . 

• 46 

14 . 


tlepiKfipofif'pri 408-9 . 

• 47 

P. Beriin 

. 46 




235. 238 

256 97 

i- 234, 243 

. 98 

ii. 198-9 . 

. 98 

Nepos, T/ieiiiisf. I . 

• 93 

9 . . . 

. 118 

Ciinon 2 . 


Nonnus, Dionys. iv. 28 sqq. 


Numbers xxi. 1-3 . 


Papyri, P.Brit. Mus. 128 . 

. 180 

P. Oxy, 12 . 

. 106 


. 132 


• 1-4 

1241. ii. 15 

• 131 

1376 . I 


II. 113 

.Silzuiigslicr. d. Berl. Akad 


8 46 

I Peter v. 8 . 

• 23 

2 Peter ii. 4 . 


Phlegethon Fr. 34 . 

. 142 

Photius, Uvdov 

• 145 

Pindar, 01. i-ii, vi-vii = 1614. 

Py. ii. 80 . . . 

• 39 

Fr. 71 Schroeder . 

• 27 

74b .. . 


75 • • 2 


, 40- 42 

79 a = 1604. 11. I- 


79 b = 1604. II. 8- 

1 1. 

80 . 


81 . 

31. 40 

167 .. . 

• 142 

168-9 • 


208 = 1604. 11. 13 


249 .. . 

3i> 40 


• 39 

284 .. . 

• 38 

Plato, Hipp, maior 283 d . 

• 93 

Maio 74 c = 1611. 115- 


Philebus 62 d . 

. 86 



I'AC. !■: 


Plato, Pro/tig. 337 b-357 .1 = 1624. 

Schol. Pindar, Ol. ii. 43 . 


^'■f- 335 t • 


70 . . . 


Tirnaeus 71b, 72c . 

. 96 

77  • 


Plin)-, Xiit. Hisl. viii. 155 

• 15J 

Py. ii. 80 . . 


Plutarch, T/umisl. 2 

^9, 93 

Plato, Alcib. i. 387 



. 119 

Sophocles, 4/(7.v 694-705, 753-64 = 


. 118 



. 119 

Stobaeus, Ed. ii. 46 


Cmoii 4 

• 144 

Strabo x. 466 . 


7 • 

12 0, T 2 6 



8 . 

121, 141 

Suetonius, Iiil. 61 . 


12 . 

lOI, 1 2 I -3 

Aug. 52 .... 


'3 • 


Suidas, Mwio-fof .... 


A' oral. 835 e . 

. 68 

Ni'tria ..... 




X\oKi\iii)V .... 


849 d . 


SfXfl'KOff .... 


Be Mils. 10 

. 28 

Syncellus i. 368, 399 Dindorf . 


Polemon (FHG. iii) l-r. 4 . 

. '44 

Tacitus, Ann. iv. 37 



. 131 

Theocritus, Id. v, vii, .w = 1618. 


. 144 

Theopompus Fr. 28 Grenfell-Hunt . 

1 1 1 

Polyaenus. Strateg. i. 34. i 

102. I 22 

90 . . . 


Polybius iii. 113 

• 197 

217, 283 


xii. 28 . . . 

. 107 

I I'hessal. iv. 13-2 Thess. 1.2 = 1598. 

Psalm ii. i = 1600. 49^55- 

Thucydides i. 11-14 = 1620. 

xliii. 22 . 


<)8 . . 107, 1 20, 126 

Schol. Aeschines, Defah. leg. i 

8 . 77 

1 00 . 


In Ctes. 15 

• 213 

137 . . . 118-19 

Apollon. Rhod. i. 59 

128, 142 

138 . 


Aristides 217 Diiidorf 

[28, 146 

ii. II, 35 =1621. 

Arist. Birds 445 . 


65, 67 = 1622. 

Clouds 967 . 

i 28, 146-7 

iii. 7-9 = 1623. 

Hesiod, Thcog. 117 

• 145 

Tobit xii. 14-19 = 1594. 

Homer A 264 

128, 142 

Virg. Aen. ix. 619 . 


Lucian, Gall. 19 

. 142 

Zenobius, Cfut. iii. 64 . . . 


Pindar, 0/. i. 1 1 5 . 

. i6d 


*^ 6 ^ -^ - *^ 

V V C cT 

-^^ 7 — "^- , 
^ Jb «_i v5 










.-> ^ 5: 

' r, :i it ■^ >- 



' . o< ^ '^ ^ '^• 




f- • u 3 i: :;; y *• 

' " 4 •/ :, c i; r . 
^ .. . t .<**.-:: 
5-? '. : y K -  



V 'T o '.^ «; ^ (• I 
V a V iC H ♦- «< - r 

Plate II 

."It /■^f" 

"T-fAr*^Ax»f'-f 't'' 

Ai»Y-pi>. •^'M-' " 

rHfA^oy ^*-rT>^ 

-Ayr' '"'^ 

^)^i6; .N/'/^z-.-At- 

AH f ^c>; l^^-p-, .-, ^JN'T^f 

^•Y Tf- 7  f ' r^^'N/ Ay ,' "/> 
>:MM ^ w <r^s u Nj f- y \'^,'' 


^;;Tyx K*^'f^ /4-f>'^ 

A7H>JMA!Ki m' 

 d^y.vfA'-^'-i?"^^ ' 
icA.'7A- ' " 

Af.i f "A 

 UN. vr 

/( M- r I 

Tt <^- "/ 



No. 1606. Fr. 6, Cols, i-ii 

Plate III 

^^:rY"^.v%^^ - )<;i^^/^ y^^ ^^^7-^^. ^ }''' 

-■:-^^^f^M*U*fe^% ^ i/-/:rc r.^*-AV -^fti^.y •^*' 

No. 1607. !• IS. 5 + 4 ^^1 "^"V-- 

i)?-j7rVe-~ • ^°' '^'°- ^''^" •^"*'5 No. 1600. Fr. 4 

:* »■• 

3 J^."l '-^ 

jf.j^WrN^ -^^^ ^-^^^^imi ■'■'-'^AfJ--/:^ 

•».. ?■" 

 ' .'-. -- ' *. I 

•N^ ^1-^ 

No. 1610. Fr. 15 

No. ibiu. Fr. I 

No. 1610. Fr. 6 

Plate IV 


No. 1618. Col. x 



'f v^:;  

No. 161 T ;rc/o 



1^ * '^ 


7tf I 

• iV 


No 1622. Cols, ii-iii 

Plate V 

^"'^''' . jLUrl'^cJUN-T-a- -r}CTtr>f£ OO"- 


^\ Z-J2 I^Crl C JUlD t J crr( N ^! TU) (.TlX 

., ^ ,, ^r>fkco-rov - ^^idcGIC- 

No. i6iQ. I'l'. lo ,^- .  

'-t-» I 

■n.V - » « 




No. 1 62 1 verso 

Plate VI 


« .^■^'>^. 


No. 1624. Cols. l.\iii-iv ^,. j j^ 

No. 1624. Col. l.wi 



No. 1620 



n^HE EGYPT EXP LOR A TION FUND, v'/iich has conducted Archaeological research 
in Egypt since 1882, in 1897 started a special department, called the Graeco-Roman 

Branch, for the discovery and puhlicatiim of remains of classical antiquity and early 

Christianity in Egypt. 

The Graeco-Roman Branch issues annual volumes, each of about 2 -,0 /ptarto pages, with 

facsimile plates of the more important papyri, under the editorship of Profs. Gkenfell and 


A subscription of One Guinea to the Graeco-Roman Branch entitles subscribers to the annual 

volume, and to attendance at the Fund's lectures in London and elsnvk re. A donation 0/ £25 

constitutes life membership. Subscriptions may be sent to the Honorary Treasurers^or 

England, Mr. J. Grafton Milne, 13 Tavistock Square, London, W.C. i ; and for America, 

Mr. Chester I. Campbell, 503 Tremont Temple, Boston, Mass. 




For 18S3-4. By Edouard Naville. Thirteen Plates and Plans. {^Fourtli and Revised 
Edition.') 2-,s. 
II. TANIS, Part I. For 1884-5. By W. IM. Flinders Petrie. Eighteen Plates 
.and two Plans. {Second Ediiion.) 25J. 

III. NAUKRATIS, Part I. For 1885-6. By W. M. Flinders Petrie. With 

Chapters by Cecil Smith, Ernest A. Gardner, and IJarclav V. Head. Korty-four Plates 
and Plans. {Second Ediiion.) 25^. 


By Edouard Naville. Eleven Plates and Plans. {Second Ediiion.) 25s. 
V. TANIS, Pan II; including TELL DEFENNEH (The Biblical ' Tahpanhes ') 
and TELL NEBESHEH. For 1SS7-S. By W. M. Flinders Petrie, F. Li.. Grifitth, 
and A. S. MURRAY. F"ifty-one Plates and Plans. 25J. 
VI. NAUKRATIS, Part II. For 1888-9. By Ernest A. Gardner and F. Ll. 
Griffith. Twenty-four Plates and Plans. 2^s. 

Antiquities of Tell-el-Yahudiyeh. An Extra Volume. By Edouard Naville and 
F. Ll. Griffith. Twenty-sis Plates and Plans. 25^. 























BUBASTIS. For 1889-90. By Edouard N.wille. Fifty-four Plates. 25^-. 

Conlaininf; THE SIGN P.-\PyRUS (a Syllabary). By F. Li.. Griffith. THE 
GEOGKAPHICAE PAPYRUS (.in Almanac). By \V. M. Flinders Petkif,. \Viih 
Remarks Ijy Heinricu Brucsch. {Out of f Hut .^ 


By Edouard Nayille. Thirty-nine Plates, i^i. 
AHNAS EL INIEDINEH. For 1891-2. By Edou.-\rd Navii.le. Eighteen 
Plates. And THE TOMB OF PAHERI AT EL'KAB. By J. J. Tylor and F. I.L. 
Griffith. Ten Plates. 25.?. 

DEIR EL BAHARI, Introductory. For 1892- 

Fifteen Plates and Plans, i^s. 

DEIR EL BAHARI, Part I. For 1893-4. By Edouard 
I-XXIV (three coloured) with Description. Royal folio. 30^. 

DEIR EL BAHARI, Part II. For 1894-5. By Edouard 
XXV-LV (two coloured) with Description. Royal folio. 30^. 

Bv Edouard Navii-le. 

Nayille. Plates 

Nayille. Plates 

For 1895-6. By \V. M. Flinders Petrie. Photogravure and 


For 1898-9. By W. M. 
By Edouard Nayille. 

Royal folio. 30.S. 

W. M. Flinders Petrie. 


other Plates. 2.:;. 
DEIR EL BAHARI, Part IIL For 1896-7. By Edouard Nayille. 

LVI-LXXXVI (two coloured) with Description. Royal folio. 30^. 
DENDEREH. For 1897-8. By W. M. Flinders Petrie. Thirty-eight Plates. 

25s. (Extra Plates of Inscriptions. Forty Plates. loi.) 


Flinders Petrie. Si.xty-eight Plates. 25^. 
DEIR EL BAHARI, Part IV. For 1899-1900. 
Plates LXXXVll-CXVIII i,two coloured) wilh Description. 

DIOSPOLIS PARVA. A71 Extra Volume. By 
Forty-nine Plates, j Out 0/ print.') 


lyoo-i. By W. M. Flinders Petrie. Sixty-three Plates. 25^'. (Thirty-five extra 
Plates, loj.) 

ABYDOS, Part I. For 1 901-2. By W. M. F. Petrie. Eighty-one Plates. 25^. 

EL AMRAH AND ABYDOS. An Extra Volume. By D. Randall-MacIver, 
A. C. Mace, and F. Ll. Griffith. Sixty Plates. 25^. 

ABYDOS, Part II. For 1902-3. By \V. M. F. Petrie. Sixty-four Plates. 25^-. 

ABYDOS, Part III. An Extra Volume. By C. T. Currelly, E. R. Ayrton, 
and A. E. V. Weigali., &c. Sixty-one Plates. 25J. 

EHNASYA. For 1903-4. By W. M. Flinders Petrie. Forty -three Plates. 25^. 
(ROMAN EHNASYA. Thirty-two extra Plates, los.) 

DEIR EL BAHARI, Part V. F"or 1904-5. By Edouard N.wille. 
CXIX-CL wilh Description. Royal folio. 30;.'. 

For 1905-6. By Edouard Navili.e and H. R. Hall. Thirty-one Plates, i^s. 

DEIR EL BAHARI, Part VI. For 1906-7. By Edouard Nayille. 
CLI-CLXXIV (one coloured) with Description. Royal folio. 30^. 


For 1907-S. By Edouard Nayille. Twenty-four Plates. 2~,s. 

E. R. Ayrton and \V. L. S. Eoat. i^s. 

For 1909-10. By Edouard Nayille, H. R. Hall, and C. T. Currelly. Thirty-six 

Plates. 25i. 

CEMETERIES OF ABYDOS, Part I. For 1910-11. By F:douard Navii le, 
T. E. Peet, and H. R. Hall. 25^^. 

CEMETERIES OF ABYDOS, Part II. Fori9ii-i2. By T. E. Peet. 25^-. 

CEMETERIES OF ABYDOS, Part III. For 1912-13. By T. E. Peet 

and W. L. S. LOAT. 25^. 
INSCRIPTIONS FROM SINAI, Part I. For 191 3-14. By A. H. Gardiner 

and T. E. Peet. 35^-. 


Part I. 

























iuliltd by K. I.I.. (.KHlllll. 

BENI HAS.\N, Part 1. F<ir 1890-1. By Percy E. Newberrv. With Plans 

by G. W. Fraskr. Forly-nine I'lates (four coloured). {Out of print:) 

BENI HASAN, Pan II. For 1891-2. By Percy E. Nkwberrv. Wiih Appendix, 

Plans, and Measurements by Vi. W. Frasf.r. Thiny-seven Plates (two coloured). 35J. 

EL BERSHEII, Part I, Eor 1892-3. By Percy E. Newberry. Thirty-four 

Plates (two coloured . 2},s. 
EL BERSHEH, Part II. For 1893-4. Ilv F. Ll. Gkifeu h aiul Percy E. 

Newberry. Willi Appendix by G. \V. Fraser. Twenty-three Plates (two coloured), i^s. 

BENI HASAN, Part III. For 1894-.^. By F. Ll. Grieeith. (Hieroglyphs, 
and manufacture, &c., of Flint Knives.) Ten coloured Plates. 2^s. 

EXPLORATION FUND, lor 1S95-6. Hy F. Ll. Griffith. Nine coloured Plates. 25J-. 

BENI HASAN. Part IV. For 1896-7. By F. Ll. Griffith. (Illu.strating 
beasts and birds, arts, crafts, &c.) Twenty-seven Plates (twenty-one coloured,. 25^. 


SAQQAREH, Part L For 1897-8. By Nurman de G. Davies and F. Ll. Griffith. 
Thirty-one Plates (three coloured). 2y, 

For 189S-9. By N. DE G. Davies and F. Ll. Griffith. Thirty- five Plates. 25s. 

THE ROCK TOMBS OF SHEIKH SAID. For 1S99-1900. By N. de G. 

Davies. Thirty-five Plates, ajj-. 

N. de G. Davies. Twenty-seven Plates ' two coloured). 25J. 
DEIR EL GEBRAWI, Part II. For iyoi-2. By N. 

Plates (two coloured). 25^. 

Davies. Forty-one Plates. 2^s. 

EL AIMARNA, Part II. For 1903-4. By N. de G. Davies. Forty-seven Plates. 

EL AMARNA, Part III. For 1904-5. By N.deG. Davies. Forty Plates. 

EL AMARNA, Part IV. Fori 905-6. By N. de G. Davies. Forty-five Plates. 

EL AMARNA, Part V. For 1906-7. By G. Davies. Forty-four Plates. 

EL AMARNA, Part VI. For 1907-8. By N. de G. Davies. Forty-four Plates. 


LM.SCRIPTION.S, Part I. For 1908-9. By F^ Ll. Griffith. Thirty-five Plates. 25^. 

MEROITIC INSCRIPTIONS, Part II. For 1909-10. By F. Ll. Griffith. 
Forty-eight Plates. 25.1. 

FIVE THEBAN TOMBS. For 1910-11. By N. de G. Davies. Forty-three 
Plates. 25^. 

THE ROCK TOMBS OF MEIR, Pan I. For 1911-12. By A. M. Black- 
man. Thirty-three Plates. 25^. 

MEIR, Part IL For 1912-13. By A. M. Blackman. Thirty-five Plates. 25^-. 

MEIR, Part III. For 1913-14. By A. M. Blackman. Thirty-nine Plates. 25^. 

MEIR, Part R'. For 1914-15. (^Iii pn-para/wii.) 

de G. Davies. Thirty 
1902—3. ByN. deG. 

2 5.f. 

2 5-f- 
2 5 J. 




and A. S. Hunt. Eight Collotype Plates. {Out 0/ print.) 


and A. S. Hunt. Eight Collotype Plates. 25^. 


A. S. Hunt, and D. G. Hogarth. Eighteen Plates. 25J. 

IV. THE TEBTUNIS PAPYRI. Double Volume for 1900-1 and 1901-2. By B. P. 

Grenfell, a. S. Hunt, and J. G. S.mylv. Nine Collotype Plates. {Not for sale.) 

V. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Pan III. For 1902-3. By B. P. Grenfell 
and A. S. Hunt. Six Collotype Plates. 2ji. 

By B. 1'. Grenfell 
By B. P. Grenfell 
By B. P. Grenfell, 

VI. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part IV. For 1903-4. By B. P. Grenfell 

and A. S. Hunt. Eight Collotype Plates. 25*. 

VII. THE HIBEH PAPYRI, Part I. Double Volume for 1904-5 and 1905-6. By 
B. P. Grenfeli. and A. S. Hunt. Ten Collotype Plates. 45s. 

MIL THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part V. For 1906-7. By B. P. Greneell 

and A. S. Hunt. .Seven Collotype Plates. 25J. 
IX. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part VI. For 1907-8. By B. P. Grenfell 

and A. S. Hunt. Six Collotype Plates. 25J. 

X. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part VII. For 1908-9. By A. S. Hunt. 

Six Collotype Plates. 25^. 
XI. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part VIII. For 1909-10. By A. S. Hunt. 

Seven Collotype Plates. 25J. 

XII. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part IX. For 1910-11. Bv A. S. Hunt. 

.Six Collotype Plates. 2^s. 

XIII. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part X. For 1911-12. By B. P. Grenfell 

and A. S. Hunt. Six Collotype Plates. 25J. 

XIV. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part XI. For 1912-13. By B. P. Grenfell 

and A. S. Hunt. Seven Collotype Plates. 25^. 

XV. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part XII. For 1913-14. By B. P. Grenfell 

and A. S. Hunt. Two Collotype Plates. 25^-. 

XVI. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part XIII. For 1914-15. By B. P. Grenfell 

and A. .S. Hunt. Six Collotype Plates. 25J. 
XVII. THE OXYRHYNCHUS PAPYRI, Part XIV. {Li pn-pcim/ion.) 


(Yearly Summaries by F. G. KenV'in, \V. E. Crum, and the Officeis of the Society, with Maps.) 

Edited by F. Ll. Griffith. 
THE SEASON'S WORK. For 1S90-1. By E. Naville, P. E. Newberry, and G. W. Frasek. is. C,/. 
For 1892-,^ and 1893-4. 2s. dd. each. 
,, 1894-5. 3.f. (>d. Containing Report of D. G. Hogarth's Excavations in Alexandria. 
,, 1895-6. IS. With Illustrated Article on the Transport of Obelisks by Edouard Naville. 
,, 1S96-7. 2.r. dd. With Article on Oxyrhynchus and its Papyri by B. P. Grenfell. 
,, 1897-8. 2s.f>d. With Illustrated Article on Excavations at Hierakonpolis by W. M. F. Petrie. 
„ 1898-9. zs.dd. With Article on the Position of Lake Moeris by B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt. 
And thirteen successive years, 2s. Gd. each. 

A JOURNAL OF EGYPTIAN ARCHAEOLOGY (issued Quarterly) commenced 
January, 1914. 6j. a part, or £1 is. a year to Subscribers. 


AOriA IH20Y : 'Sayings of Our Lord,' from an Early Greek Papyrus. By B. P. Grenfell 
and A. S. Hunt. 2s. (with Collotypes) and (>d. net. 


B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt. is. net. 

Hunt. i.r. net. 

COPTIC OSTRACA. By W. E. Crum. los. 6d. net. 

By Nina de G. Davies and A. H. Gardiner. 30.?. 

Slides from Fund rhotographs may he obtained tliroi(;^h Messrs. A'cwloii &^ Co , 37 King Street, 
Cement Garden, IV.C. 2. 

Offices of the Egypt Exploration Fund: 


Agents : 







TUN 1 1988 




'\ !',/^m^m^m^m